2026-10-15 - Planning Commission

Good evening, and welcome to the October Planning Commission meeting, 2026. We'll start off by Mrs. Westfall, if you'll call the roll. Mrs. Iverson, Mr. Martin, Mr. McGee, Mr. Heiser, Mr. Abbott, Mr.

Parker, Chairman Ledbetter. Here. Next item on the agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. I ask Mr. McGee if he will start us off. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to

the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Mr. McGee. We will now have a moment of silence. Thank you. Next item on the agenda

is amendments to the agenda. Are there any amendments from the commission? Seeing none, we will move to the approval of the minutes. I'll make a motion for approval of the minutes. We need a second.

Second. Mr. Abbott. Thank you, Mr. Abbott. We'll call for the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. Next item on the agenda is Citizens' Time. That's the time where we

can talk on a case or subject that may not be on -- that is not on the agenda tonight. So is there anyone here that would like to speak at Citizens' Time? Let's see. One, two. Okay. If you want to

come down, first one, and then -- Hi. My name is Cheryl Mathery. I live in the South Anna District. And I, first of all, would like to thank Mr. Abbott for voting no on the Mountain Road Data Center.

And I'm here because I want you to know that there are still a lot of us out there that don't want the data centers for various reasons. I also would like to point out that a lot of the lawyers are

playing chicken. Like, if you don't do this for me, I'm not going to do that for you. Or I'm going to make this bigger and worse for everything. I would like to know where you and where we as people

regain control over what is happening in our county. Yes, data centers can bring in money. But they also affect us health, water, environment, and everything else. And those things need to be

concerned. And I'm sorry, I just -- I'm not very good at public speaking. I would like to know where you can regain the control and not have these data centers overrun our lives. And they're going to,

if we don't put a stop to it, how can you prevent them? How can you control how many we have? How can you control the environment? Which you can't, really. But you have to think about the future. The

future is not just now. The future is 10, 15, 20 years ago. What happens when these go out of date and all of a sudden they're going to take up, like, maybe this much space? And you have all these

warehouses that are sitting there empty. What are you going to do with them? Think of the future. Think of us. Think of you. You're living here. I'm very tempted at this point in my life to put my

house on the market and get the deep, deep, deep out of Hanover County and out of Virginia because we have so many. We don't need to have any more water being sucked out of our environment. And we

don't need to have any more pollution put in it. So, Mr. Abbott, I appreciate you voting. No, I really do. And I hope that everyone else on the board really considers what is happening. And don't let

dollar signs just influx your brains with it because how many of these have really started producing money for the County of Hanover? Can you tell me? Probably not. I don't think any of them have come

totally online. And where do you draw a line between what's happening between Ashland and Hanover? How do you guys work together to keep this monstrosity from getting any larger? And that's all I have

to say. So please keep us in mind. Keep your families in mind also. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hi. Holly Mankie with South Anna. I just wanted to talk about the meeting from Iron Horse and point

out a few things that I have confirmed with the Commissioner over the revenue. And that is that anything that is in Ashland, Hanover gets all of its money. People who live in Ashland pay more to live

there. They pay money to Ashland and then they pay their full boat to Hanover County. So anything that's put on the Ashland side, whether it's on Iron Horse or Opa Dawn, we're going to get our full

share of the 44 cents or 45 cents for every hundred dollars worth. I also wanted to say that I think for processes going forward, I don't think that the original idea was for businesses to have an

easier time in Hanover County to do things than people who own their own property. If somebody wants to put an additional housing unit on their property, they have to have an application, pay all the

fees, a community meeting, then come before you and then go before the board of supervisors. If somebody is a business and the zoning is already there, they don't have to do any of that if they want

to put a data center up. They just have to have a site plan filed, which means there's no oversight from the planning commission or from the board of supervisors. And I think that's not the intention,

was to make it harder for individual people than businesses, but that's what's happening with our zoning that we have now. So that's just something that I hope you would consider in the future. Thank

you. Thank you, Miss Mackey. Any anybody else would like to speak at citizens town? Seeing none, we will close citizens town. The next item on the agenda is a public hearings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are two items that are on the expedited presentations for tonight's meeting. Both those items are in the Cold Harbor district. And these are items that have no known citizen concerns or

outstanding planning issues. So therefore, it'd be a short presentation followed by the public hearing. If the planning commission would choose to remove these cases from the expedited agenda, staff

would give a full presentation. So what are we moving? What are you asking to move? Typically, you ask if there's any opposition to any of the cases on the expedited agenda. Correct. There's no that

we know of. I'm sorry, is there anybody here that would like to speak in opposition of the expedited case? We'll open the public hearing and then you can speak at that time. Okay, all right. Sorry

about that, Mr. Parfait. All right, we will leave that on the expedited. Yes, sir. So the first public hearing item that's on the expedited presentations is REZ2026-00028, Carol and Walter Rawls,

Trustees. This is a case that involves an amendment to the proffer as a conceptual plan with a previously approved rezoning in 2024. In 2024, this particular development, which includes eight lots

total, was rezoned to AR6 as part of two zoning cases. And what the applicants are requesting right now is to amend a portion of the conceptual plan proffer one with the original rezoning required

substantial conformity. And that development would occur in accordance with that plan that you see on the screen. The one change that the applicants proposing, which requires a proffer amendment and a

conceptual plan amendment, is changing the designation of the road at the rear of the property that's highlighted in yellow on the screen. So with the original rezoning, and my laser printer is not

working, but it's that yellow highlighted portion of the property. In the original rezoning, that road was shown as a public right of way, as a stub road leading to another property owned by the

applicant. Instead of doing a public road for that yellow portion of the roadway, the applicants requesting to amend the conceptual plan and proffers to allow a private road in that area. All other

aspects of the zoning case, all other proffers and all other elements shown in the conceptual plan remain the same. The only change is changing that end portion of the roadway from a public road to a

private road. Thank you. Is that the full presentation? Yes, sir. I'd be happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission has before the public hearing. Are there any questions from the

commission at this time? Are they planning to build the road? No, they would only, right now, they would only build the road to the cul-de-sac, and that whole portion in gray would be a public road.

But in the future, they may build a private road going to that parcel that you see on the top corner of the street. They'll just deal with it later. Correct. The private road's going to the parcel on

the other side of the RPA. I guess the blue is the RPA? Yes, sir. There's a parcel that the applicant owns on the other side of that creek, an RPA area. Can they build a road over that? They could

build it if they meet all the applicable environmental regulations. And the applicant's engineer is here as well to answer any questions. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Pompey.

At this time, we'll open the public hearing as the applicant here. Would you come forward, please? State your name. I'm Bonnie Beavers. I'm the engineer for the project. Okay. Do you have any

questions? Are you obviously in favor of the project? Yes. Okay. It was going to be quite an ordeal to build a public road across the creek there because it's a sharp drop into the creek bottom and

then a sharp grade up on the other side and public roads have requirements for how steep they can run. So there was going to need to be a lot of fill and environmental impacts with a public road that

can be avoided with a private driveway. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Abbott? So if we're avoiding the requirements of the state by turning it into a private road, how will it be maintained? And I guess

another question for staff is, does a public road have to meet fire to get a fire truck back there? I mean, is that going to be the only access to that property towards the top? There's no other.

There's a road up there called Twin Girls Lane, I believe, but it's also private and the residents of that road don't want this applicant using it for access. So it's basically landlocked without this

road? Yes. I think it doesn't even front Twin Girls Lane. I'm sorry? I said that the parcel over there owned by Walter and Carol Rawls does not even front Twin Girls Lane. So yes, it's landlocked

without this access. Do they have any plans for this landlocked property? No. Just access? They may subdivide it, but it's zoned agricultural, so at most they could get three residential lots. Okay.

Question for staff. If they subdivide that land up top, can they use a private road to access it or does it have to become public? Because of the number of lots in the A1 zoning, it could be a private

road to access three lots. In the A1 zoning district, you can subdivide the property and use private roads for up to 32 lots, and the applicant's representative said that particular parcel based on

the minimum lot size of 10 acres in A1 could only get three lots. So a private road would be permitted. That's all I have. Thank you. Any other questions for me, Commissioner? I think that's all for

you at this point. Now we'll open the public meeting. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in opposition of this case? I've got to ask, it's Galli Sanford. Would you state your name in the

district you live in? It's Galli R. Sanford, Jr., and I live right on the backside of where Mr. Rawls was building. We went to this last meeting before. He told us they were breaking it up into where

they would be building houses back there, and they would be backing up to us. My concern is, if they don't want to do the public road because of environmental impact, well, why are you going the

cheaper route and going the private road to where you don't have to have those higher standards? I'd feel better about the higher standards if they're going to use that land, so be it. Can't stop

progress, but at the same time, how's it going to impact everybody else around there? Because they couldn't even start clearing that land, because there were birds in there, and they needed to wait

for the birds to migrate out before they could even start logging that land. So I'm just wondering how this is going to impact everything. My main concern is, why is it such a big deal from going from

public to not public? I don't understand what the difference is, and I heard her say it's a lot more restrictive. I get that, but it's restricted for a reason. That's my only concern. Okay, we'll see

if we can answer that. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition? Is there anyone here that would like to speak in support of this case? Seeing none, we'll close the

public hearing. Mr. Pompey, do you have anything to add to the questions that the gentleman just asked? The applicant's representative indicated there is interest in building a private road because it

will be less environmental impacts because there's less grading, the road can be narrower, less impacts on the creek if it's a private road versus a public road because public roads are larger,

require more grading, less of a slope, as the applicant's representative indicated. I was under the belief that we could not have land that was landlocked. Is there a parcel here that's actually

landlocked? If there is, the applicant owns property that goes out to the public road, so they own that property so they can go through another parcel they own to get to it. And if a parcel is

landlocked, the county does not get involved in negotiating or getting access. And in this particular case, there's no county regulation that requires that it be a public road versus a public road

other than in the conceptual plan he showed it as a public road. So the applicant actually owns the property that is somewhat landlocked? Is that? Yes, yes. He owns where that yellow road goes to on

the top right corner of the screen. So they have a pass to give to them? Correct. They can give access to themselves. Otherwise, there's no other access to that property. Okay. Mr. Abbott? Speaking

out of the same vein, so you're saying that a private road would have less environmental impact than a public road? Yes, that's what the applicant's indicating because the standards for a private road

are lesser than a public road. You don't have to be as wide. You don't have to have as shallow a slopes. You can have super slopes for the roadway itself. So it's a narrow road with less grading

required is what the applicants indicating to cross that creek. Have we had any cases that are similar to this? Because I don't recall anything like this where it's going through, I guess it's an RPA.

There are roadways, both public and private, that cross RPA. The one thing that is unusual about this case is that the conceptual plan showed one type and then we're switching to another road type.

That typically doesn't happen, but throughout the county in the A1 zoning district, private roads can be built and can cross waterways and RPA. There's just certain requirements that public works and

forces to minimize the impacts to those environmentally sensitive areas. So it's not a blank check. They have to go through public works and get approval for what they want. Yeah, they'd have to get a

land disturbance permit and any wetlands permits and whatever is required from public works. This is just saying from a planning perspective, a private road is permissible in this location. It's

permissible and we will have oversight and it will be built to county standards with the less environmental impact. That's what I'm getting at, is the environmental impact. The roadway width and

design is less of a footprint in terms of grading and the roadway itself or a private road versus the public road. Right, and fire and EMS are okay with the private road going back to you, and you

said what, 34 houses? They're thinking about putting back there. No, no. There would only be three houses in there, but in the A1 and AR6 zoning district, you can have private roads for up to 32

houses. Oh, okay. So they're well below that threshold. But they've only got land for three or four houses. Correct. Okay, all right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any other questions

from the commissions? Just to confirm what Ms. Pompey and Mr. Abbott are talking about, so the original plan called for a public road, which would have been the applicant is saying more disruptive and

the private road would be less disruptive to the RPA. Is that staff's opinion as well? I think that's a logical assumption. Okay, thank you. Mr. McGee, I believe this is in your district. All right.

Appreciate the interest in the Cold Harbor District. Well, with that said, I've spoken with Mr. Rawls on several occasions. He's actually reached out to offer to have another community meeting on

this, and I believe the supervisor said that probably would not be needed. Hope your answers, or help your questions have been satisfied. See your hat. Appreciate your service, very much that country.

With that, I would like to make a motion for approval of REZ2026-00028 with profits received August 3, 2026. Second. I have a motion from Mr. Gee and a second from Mr. Martin. We'll call for the vote.

All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next case. The next item on the expedited presentations agenda is also a request in the Cold Harbor District. This is a request to rezone 6.75

acres by Ann and David Lass from A1 to RS, single family residential district, to create two additional lots for family members. So there'll be three lots total on this particular property. All the

lots will be served by a private road from Creighton Road just north of its intersection on Sandy Valley Road. The lots, again, will be for family members, and they range in size from one acre to over

three and a half acres. Profits address adherence to the conceptual plan, tree preservation, buffering, right-of-way dedication, access, and environmental protection are typical of other RS zoning

cases. This concludes staff's presentation, and the applicant is also here tonight to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Pompey. Any questions from the commission on this one? Seeing none, we'll

open the public meeting. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in opposition of this case? Seeing none, we'll ask if anybody here would like to speak in support of this case. Seeing none,

we'll close the public hearing. Mr. McGeever's whispering here, but I didn't hear him. Ah, that's okay. I just want to confirm, Mr. Lass, you good with the report? Thank you. Yes, sir. That's all I

want to ask. I do support it, however, if I need to stand up and say that. That's Mr. Lass. That's the applicant. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lass. I think he's happy with it. All right. Well, we'll turn it

over to you, Mr. McGeever. Yeah, this is on the expedited agenda for a reason. I've spoken with Mr. Lass a few times. I know the folks he bought the property from, so it's all a good deal. Suburban

neighborhood residential, I guess they could come and ask for 18 houses on this property. I like the idea of three a lot better at that intersection of Creighton and Sandy Hook. And with that said, I

would like to make a motion for approval of REZ2026-00030 with profits received September 21st, 2026. I have a motion by Mr. Gee. Do we have a second? Second habit. Second by Mr. Abbott. Any questions

from the commission? We'll call for the vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. I believe we have some ordinances to talk about next. Thank you, Chair Lett. All of the public

hearings remaining at tonight's meeting are ordinance amendments. The first half of these ordinance amendments are to address changes in state legislation. The state adopted some legislation that

requires localities to do certain things in their zoning and subdivision ordinances. And then the last two are different ordinance amendments initiated by the Board of Supervisors. So the first

ordinance amendment, which again is required by state code, is a request to amend the zoning ordinance to codify recently adopted state legislation regarding parking requirements in multifamily

residential districts. So our zoning ordinance establishes minimum parking requirements for every use that can be developed in the county. And there currently is a process where developers can request

a reduction in the number of off-street parking spaces otherwise required. However, that process exempts multifamily residential projects. So as part of this change in state legislation, we're to

change our zoning ordinance to allow applicants to request an administrative approval of a reduction in the amount of parking spaces required. This process again is administrative. So it's reviewed by

the planning director and approved subject to certain guidelines, which I'll show you later in the presentation. So again, we already have this process to allow for a reduction or a possible reduction

in off-street parking requirements. But we're going to extend that opportunity to multifamily residential because language in section 26-254 specifically prohibits development in our multifamily

residential districts from being eligible. We will strike that exemption and allow those types of projects if this ordinance amendment is approved to apply for a reduction in parking in accordance

with the state code changes. This is the process that development currently follows to request a change or reduction in the minimum parking requirements. And multifamily residential development would

be eligible for this process if this ordinance amendment is approved. So if a developer thinks that the parking that's required by the ordinance is too much or doesn't meet their needs, they can

request a reduction and it's limited amount of reduction. They submit a study based on traffic information and parking information from other uses and what the demand for parking will be on that site

based on the type of development. They submit their sketch plan and site plan showing the development. Once the planning director receives that particular request, adjoining property owners are

notified and they can provide feedback within 21 days of receiving the notice. After the notice period is over, based on the information provided by the applicant and criteria spelled out in the

zoning ordinance, the planning director approves or denies that request. So again, this ordinance amendment would extend this opportunity to multifamily residential development because a change of

state code requires localities to offer that opportunity to multifamily residential developers. I'd be happy to answer any questions the planning commission has at this time. Mr. Abbott. We're at

Dillon Road State. Why do we have to approve this? Isn't this just law passed down to county now? The way that it's written is that any locality must have this certain type of ordinance. And Ms.

Randolph might be able to add her legal opinion on that. But generally speaking, the state says what you can and cannot do and your regulations must align with those. I guess I don't understand why we

have to approve it when the states already said do this. But the state is actually requiring us to establish this by ordinance. And I'm happy to give you a copy of the general assembly of their

enactment. Or I could read it to you if you'd like. So it just rolls down. We just have to approve it. Is that basically what it is? Exactly. We just got a rubber stamp. Any locality with a population

greater than 20,000 shall by ordinance establish an administrative review process which developers may request a reduction of minimum off-street parking requirements. Okay. Thank you. I have a

question. What happens if we don't approve it? The applicant could still apply for it. But it's easier for staff to not have to cross-reference this county zoning ordinance and the state code. So if

we haven't adopted something, a developer could come in and say, "You legally have to let me do this and we'd have to do it." But now it's in our code. It's putting the process in place. It's setting

up that notify the adjoining property owners. You can't just say, "I want a reduction. You have to give it to me." It's given a process. So, yes, sometimes we have to do things because the state tells

us, but we do like to incorporate it into our code as well. So bottom line, if we deny it, then it creates more work for you all. That's clear. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions from the -- So I have a

question for Ms. Hunter since she has the mic. Just as an example of this to educate me, so the 300 apartments, the state says you've got to have 600 parking spots. And I'm making this up and I don't

need to know the numbers. So the developer would have to demonstrate to staff that, "No, we really don't need that for these reasons." And then y'all would review that? Correct. So they would have to

provide a parking study of -- and the reasonings why it would only be a maximum of up to 20% of the parking spaces they could reduce. So they couldn't just say, "I'm not -- I can't build any of them."

And it is a requirement, but it still gives the planning director the ability to say yes or no if it's not an appropriate location. I have a question. We have -- the ordinance now allows for that as

well, correct? It allows for it in commercial and mixed uses districts, but it's not permitted right now. It specifically says you can't ask for a parking reduction for the residential mixed use, and

that's what the state code is now changing and saying, "Yes, you have to allow it for that use at all." However, the responsibility goes to the planning director to still make that decision. Yes, it

doesn't say you have to approve all of them, but you have to have that process. So what is the actual intent of this new ordinance? So this came out of a patron out of Northern Virginia. I think a lot

of the changes that went through the General Assembly was to address housing affordability issues and, you know, the cost of developing mixed use or multifamily projects, allowing that parking

reduction could reduce cost and encourage more housing, I think is the thought process behind it. So if we reduce parking -- take land away from parking, then we could actually build more of a

building on it? Yes, and if you build more, perhaps they'd be more affordable. Okay. That makes sense. Any other questions? So the final -- the requirements for parking are still the same, but if they

want to decrease that amount, they would have to apply for it, and it would be solely the planning director's decision. It wouldn't come before the commission. It would be in the office, and they've

proved their case to your satisfaction, and you stamp it okay. That's correct. It does require that they notify adjoining property owners. We have only had a few of these on other uses. Adjoining

property owners often call and say whether they have concerns or not, and that also weighs into the factor of the decision. I'm all for staff looking at this, because with Mr. McGee and my math

skills, it's a lot easier that way. So, yeah, if it doesn't come before us, I'm very happy. Yeah, I don't think we want to take it away from the staff. I agree with that. Any other questions from the

commission? Okay, we'll call for the vote on this. All in favor say aye. Public. Aye. All in public. We have a public hearing on these, too. Okay. Okay. I still have to open and close it. We'll now

open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that'd like to speak in support or opposition in this case? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Any other questions from the commission? We'll

call for the vote. All in favor say aye. We'll make a motion. Oh, Mr. McGee, you go ahead. Yeah, I'll make a motion. Three for me tonight. I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of

Ordinance 26-08 as proposed. We have a motion. Second habit. Second by Mr. Abbott. We'll call for the vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. The next Ordinance Amendment for

which there'll be a public hearing is another change that is intended to address changes in state code. This particular change addresses the subdivision ordinance and who can approve certain plats and

other items, administrative items. So, in 2025, the General Assembly removed the Planning Commission's approval authority for administrative review process, again, for plats and plans. And those have

to go to the Planning Director or the Board of Supervisors for review. So, the Planning Commission has taken out the review process for subdivision plats and plans. And I'll show you examples of what

the Planning Commission currently reviews and how this will change your authority. The legislation also included other mandated changes to local subdivision ordinances and local review processes, but

our processes and ordinance already address those particular changes the General Assembly required. This change is just to what authority the Planning Commission has to review some of these

administrative processes that are outlined in the subdivision ordinance. So, right now, preliminary plats are reviewed by the Planning Commission either through the rezoning process or a separate

action, these are only required for subdivisions that include 50 or more lots. So, we don't have a lot of those anyway in recent history. The Planning Commission can no longer approve preliminary

plats based on the change in state legislation. So, now, preliminary plats will be reviewed by the Planning Director. So, preliminary plats are going from the Planning Commission review to the

Planning Director review. Subdivision performance agreements, there was a change in recent years to require that second extensions of performance agreements, these are bonds that developers post to

ensure that the improvements required in their developments are actually completed. The Planning Commission approved the second extension and subsequent extensions and you all have seen that as part

of your administrative agenda in recent months. Instead of the Planning Commission reviewing those extensions, now the Planning Director will review three extensions and if the development still

hasn't been completed and the performance agreement needs to be extended further, the Board of Supervisors will review that. So, again, removing that review process from the Planning Commission and

re-delegating it to the Planning Director and then the Board if a lot of extensions are needed. Subdivision ordinance exceptions, right now, those are reviewed by the Planning Commission. The change

would be that those are reviewed and approved by the Board of Supervisors. And then appealing the Planning Director's decision, if a developer thinks that the Planning Director is interpreting

something in the subdivision ordinance incorrectly, right now, they could appeal the Planning Director's decision to the Planning Commission. With the change in state legislation, the proposed

ordinance amendment would require appeal to be filed with the circuit court. So, again, taking some of these administrative items away from the Planning Commission and either delegating them to the

Planning Director or the Board would have the authority to weigh in and make a final decision. That concludes staff's presentation, I'd be happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission has.

Any questions? Mr. Abbott? Of course. I'm sorry. Right now, when it comes before us, we're the final say in it, right? That doesn't go to the Board of Supervisors? That's correct. So, we'd just be

cutting out Planning Commission altogether? That's correct. Okay. That's it. Any other questions? This legislation came about in 2025. We thought that there was going to be changes to it because there

was some concern. The issue, it was very strongly supported by the Home Builders Association because some localities were using the Planning Commission as a tool to hold up development proposals or to

extend the time frames. You have to go to the Planning Commission for that, but you can't get on the Planning Agenda for 90 days. Our process, we actually had met with the Home Builders Association

after this was approved. This change actually lengthens all of our processes because we were making it so we had such a good customer service. We were doing the plats with the rezonings. Now, they'll

have to come back through a separate process and go to the Planning Commission. Our time frames already met all their requirements. So I think we have to do it, but this wasn't directed at our

locality or it was directed at other localities that were abusing the Planning Commission as a way to slow down projects. Thank you for the explanation. Any other questions from the Commission? Who

would like to make this motion? I must have it. A public hearing is? Oh, I'll give it. We're now open to public hearing as anyone here that would like to speak in opposition or support of this case.

Ollie Mankie, South Anna. I'll just say, all these new things that you're putting on the Planning Department, what are y'all going to do? They're going to need more people. They're going to need more

compensation for all of these new activities. They're going to have to do. I know the General Assembly did this, but do they even consider that? Well, the state mandated. No, I know it's state

mandated. We don't have much choice. It sounds like this one may relieve some of the responsibility from the Planning Department. I don't think all of them do put more work on them, but we'll see as

we go through them. It read like everything was going before the Planning Department instead of y'all, and it was putting more work on them, which would mean they would have to hire more people to

maintain their customer service level and all of that. I don't know. We'll have a good question for you, Dallian. Yeah. Or she voted. Thank you, Miss. Thank you. We'll close the public here at this

time. Any questions from the commission? Mr. Abbott, would you like to make this motion? I recommend we approve ordinance 2609 designated subdivision agent as presented. We have a motion for Mr.

Abbott. Second. Second for Mr. Hauser. We call for the vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. The next ordinance amendment is another amendment intended to align our zoning

ordinance with changes in state legislation, and they relate to temporary telecommunications support structure. I'll describe that a little bit more and show a picture of what we're talking about as

we move into the presentation. In the state code, a temporary support structure talks about basically portable communications devices that help support cell service and that kind of thing. For

example, if a temporary tower is placed for a special event or during emergencies to ensure that there's adequate cell service or radio communication or whatever that may be. So this is just a

temporary tower to supplement the grid in certain instances. State code changes require that a locality allow these temporary support structures by right. And there are certain standards that

localities can incorporate in the review process. So building permits are not required if the structure is below a certain height and it can only be in place for a certain amount of time. And this is

an example of what we're talking about. Again, this is a temporary movable tower to supplement the needs in that area for particular reason or instance. And the part of the process involves the

applicant providing justification as to why this particular facility is needed. So we are adding a definition of temporary telecommunications structure to a zoning ordinance that aligns with the state

code. Right now, this particular use requires a conditional use permit in certain districts. It would no longer require a conditional use permit. And there are some use and design standards that must

be met that align with the language that was included in the state legislation that was adopted. Again, limiting the height and duration of these particular facilities, dictating when a building

permit is needed, the application process and demonstrating why the facility is needed, and the removal of the tower once it's no longer needed. I will note there was one change to the ordinance since

the packet was distributed. And this was just correcting a typo in Section 9. So the motions reflect the updated ordinance, again, reflecting that typo in Section 9. I'd be happy to answer any

questions the Planning Commission has. Mr. Abbott. I'll keep up my streak here. I'm assuming that this doesn't apply to the airport overlay zone. I don't know the answer to that. Ms. Randolph, do you

know how it relates to our airport overlay district? That is something that I would have to verify. But I believe that airport overlay district is a -- I think that over -- those district regulations

would override other things. There's also specific instances in which these can be placed, as outlined in the ordinance again if there's an emergency or a special event or that type of thing and the

planning director reviews that application. So it's not something that would -- we anticipate occurring on a regular basis near the airport. If you look at the purpose and intent of overlay districts,

it does say that all regulations of the underlying zoning district shall be applicable except as modified by the regulations imposed by the overlay district. So that would mean that the airport

overlay district, those regulations would essentially override this so that we would not be allowing these to occur or to violate the overlay district. I have a question now. So if somebody wanted to

put a temporary power in, would they still have to go to the county and to the airport to get permission to do so if they're meeting the requirements of what's written here? There is an application

process and then the planning department would review it and look at the location, the zoning, the overlay districts and that kind of thing. And if it is in an overlay district, you know, the review

process would include a review by the airport if it's in that particular overlay district. So part of this process is if we -- this is a little bit different than some of the ordinance amendments we

talked about. If we don't adopt this as a locality, they're automatically approved. If we do adopt this process, they go through our process which requires the application that's outlined in the

ordinance. Okay, I think that answers that. Mr. Abbott, your experience as a pilot, we appreciate that question, so good question. Any other questions from the commission? Is there -- what would

happen now? I don't know. Like, there's a state fair, there's a lot of data demand, somebody wants to put up a temporary tower to increase cell service for whatever, a concert somewhere. Is that the

intent of this and what do people do now? Right now, that requires a conditional use permit. So you'd have to go through the CUP process which involves an application review by the Planning Commission

and approval by the Board of Supervisors. So this is going to make it permittable for people to have a truck with a temporary tower for basically special events? Yes, if they submit the application to

the planning director and it meets all the criteria outlined in the ordinance, they just have to go to the planning department versus going through the public hearing process. And our new ordinance is

following the state requirement, sort of verbatim exactly. We're not making it better or worse or -- Correct. It's just taking what's in state code and putting it into our ordinance. It doesn't make

any other changes. I have one question, I imagine this would come about in an emergency situation. So is there an expedited process for this ordinance? I don't think it says necessarily expedited, but

by its nature, making it administrative review by the planning director, that would be a lot faster than having to go through the CUP process. It seems very difficult to go through the CUP process if

there was an emergency because that takes at least 60 days. Right, thanks. Any other questions? We'll now open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in support or

opposition? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Mr. Abbott, would you like to make a motion on this one? Sure. I recommend -- I vote that we recommend approval of Ordered 2610 wireless

support structures. Have a motion by Mr. Abbott. Excuse me, the motion should be that you recommend approval of the version that was distributed tonight. Oh, sorry. I should read up here. I recommend

approval of Ordered 2610, oh, I don't need following amendments as proposed in the version dated October 15th, 2026. We have a motion by Mr. Abbott. I'll second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All

opposed? Motion carries. I think I've got my motion out of me now, so. We'll go to somebody else next time. The next two ordinance amendments are not related to the state code changes, but they are

issues and concerns have been raised by one or more members of the Board of Supervisors and reviewed by the community development committee, which is a subcommittee of the Board of Supervisors. The

first one involves cemeteries in the minimum area that's needed for a cemetery that's used for commercial purposes, not associated or on the site of a church or a family division. So right now

cemeteries require a conditional use permit in several different districts. It's not allowed by right in any of our zoning districts. There's also certain use standards. And this particular use

standard we're talking about is the minimum area. It says if a cemetery is a standalone facility, it's not accessory to a church that's located on the property and it's not limited to family, it has

to be at least 10 acres. The Board of Supervisors member has requested to change the minimum area for 10 acres to five acres. So right now, this particular minimum area requirement that's been in

effect since at least the 1970s, you can't even ask to have a cemetery on your property unless you have 10 acres. With this change, you can ask and go through the conditional use permit process with

as minimum of five acres. And through that conditional use permit process, we're looking at each individual application as the Planning Department, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors on its

particular merits and issues and impacts. So it still would go through that conditional use permit process, but it allows a greater number of landowners to ask for this particular use. So other

localities, of course, include cemeteries within their zoning ordinances and some establish minimum area requirements and some don't. It ranges from no minimum area requirements to up to 20 acres in

New Kent County. We are the second highest minimum area requirement right now at 10 acres. New Kent's, again, the only other locality that requires more land for cemeteries. So again, reducing the use

standards to allow minimum area cemeteries for 10 acres to five acres so that a greater number of landowners can request a standalone freestanding cemetery on their property that's not only for family

and not on the same site as a church. I'd be happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission has. I'm assuming this doesn't change any rules and regulations around burying people, right? No. So

they still have to conform with everything they have to conform with? Yes. This just means if you want to open a new cemetery and go through the process, you would only need five acres versus 10.

Thank you, Mr. Tim. And the other? I'm just curious now. So does that recognize grave sites versus mausoleum, or I'm just curious. You don't know. It's not a big deal. Well, they're the, if we go back

to the use standards, well, that deals with crematoriums, but they're all, you know, one in the same. Like we've had some amendments recently for cups that involves moratorium or columbariums. Are

they the same? Buildings for burying people. Thank you for that. What are the setbacks for the grave sites? I don't believe there's a specific requirement in the ordinance, but all of these cemeteries

are reviewed through the conditional use permit process. So they're required to have a sketch plan that shows where the graves are located or will be located as the site develops. And they also can be

reviewed for site specific needs and impacts. So as part of that process, if greater setbacks are desired by the community Planning Commission on board, they can say a hundred foot setback or whatever

the case may be. There's not necessarily a minimum that I'm aware of, but it's negotiated and worked out through the conditional use permit process. So somebody wants to create a cemetery on their

property, they have five acres. What's the first step they have to make? Do they have to come to planning? They'd have to submit a conditional use permit process. So for example, it's an older

project, but the cemetery on Route 33 near the former Tyson's plant that has a conditional use permit and it outlines areas where graves can be. And they have to adhere to that as a site develops.

They also have to submit a site plan prior to pursuing that particular use. And this particular size requirement is only for commercial cemeteries. It's not if you wanted to bury a family member on

your property. It's just for the commercial ones and church church. In this case, if a church has a cemetery that's not on their same property as our sanctuary. Any other questions? Excuse me, I'm

sorry. So this proposal will only apply to commercial cemeteries, but a church cemetery that's not on the same site as the sanctuary would be considered commercial. Okay. When we talk about, when we

talked about setbacks, I think, I believe that that should be flushed out a little bit more, setbacks from what, I mean, if you've got a five acre property right now and you got a house next door, how

far would the setback be for that? That's flushed out in the conditional use permit process. So if there's a five acre parcel and someone wants to put a cemetery planning commission, the resident or

the board can say, oh, there's a house right there. We want those graves to be at least 200 feet away. So amend your sketch plan or have a condition or wherever the case may be. So we're not rubber

stamping. They still have to go through the same way. No, no, they still have to go through the same way. No, they still have to go through the same way. It's just allowing five acres versus 10. Yeah.

And this particular instance where this came up is a church on, I believe it's Rock Hill Road. They have their church property where their sanctuary is and then they own five acres a mile down the

road or something like that. They're disconnected. So right now they can't even ask for a cemetery on this five acres. If this ordinance is approved, they can ask and come through that conditional use

permit process. Thank you. That's all. Is that answered? Okay. Any other questions from the commission? All right. We will open the public hearing again. Anyone here that'd like to speak in opposition

or support, seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Mr. McGinn, would you like to make a motion on this one? Just me and Alan tonight? You and Alan. All right. That's fine. It doesn't require a

mask. We can handle it. Nice. So I would like to make a motion, a move that the planning commission recommend approval of ordinance 26-14 as proposed. We have a motion. Second. Second by Mr. Martin.

We call for the vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion carries. This next ordinance amendment is the last public hearing for the night and it is a county initiated amendment to the

RS zoning district to remove the minimum density requirements. So the RS single family residential zoning district is the single family residential zoning district that's applied to our suburban

service area. So it accommodates suburban style development within the county's designated growth area, which makes up 22% of the county's total area. This particular zoning district was created in

2000. It was part of a board adopted growth management strategy at that time and a subcommittee was formed to create this district, which replaced some of our older single family districts. So R1, R2,

R3 are no longer used since adoption of the RS zoning district in 2000. Based on the comprehensive plan that was in effect at that time, the zoning, the RS zoning district allows densities of one unit

per acre up to four units per acre. So right now the ordinance still says the base density, so the minimum density in the RS zoning district, if you're requesting rezoning to that district is one unit

per acre and then the maximum is four units per acre. As part of some recent cases, we've had developers submit zoning requests for the RS zoning district based on particular circumstances in the

areas where those developments were proposed of less than one unit per acre. So I believe both these examples of current and previous zoning cases submitted recently were about 0.8 units per acre.

Because the zoning ordinance requires a minimum of one acre in RS, they had to add lots to be eligible for the RS zoning district. So what this change does is remove that minimum density, it says

saying the base is one unit per acre, the base density is up to one and a half or one and a quarter units per acre. Developers based on the circumstances of their particular property can ask for less

than one unit per acre for any proposed development if this ordinance amendment is approved. And so for example, we have an infill project that was our neighbor acre example based on the particular

infrastructure in that area, they're requesting 0.8 units per acre. Right now they can't request that. If the ordinance is approved, they can request rezoning to the RS district at that density. in

any RS zoning application or zoning application. The zoning district has to adhere to a conceptual plan approved by the Board of Supervisors and go through the process. We don't have RS zoning

districts that are out there that don't have a conceptual plan or proffers or that kind of thing. They all go through the public hearing process. So the Planning Commission and Board can review each

case on this particular merits, looking at the surrounding community, infrastructure availability and that sort of thing. That concludes staff's presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions the

Planning Commission may have. Mr. Parker. All right. On the executive summary, it says if approved, there will be no minimum density within the RS zoning district. But on the proposed change, it's

saying up to 1.25. Instead of saying the base density is 1 or 1.25, it says up 2. And then the base density, once you get over 1.25, there's different setbacks and development requirements. As you go

up in density. So instead of saying the base density would be 1.25, that up 2 is key because that means you can be anything below that. So the lots can get smaller and then your public use area as a

ratio to the total land mass to what's developable is changing. So you're allowing those lots to get bigger or to get smaller. If this ordinance amendments in effect, you can do less homes per site.

So for example, right now there was a project that was withdrawn in Mr. Ledbetter's district. It was 400 acres. With the current ordinance, they have to be one unit per acre, so they have to have 400

lots. If this ordinance is approved, they can have however many, however few lots they want. They could have 10 lots of 400 acres. They can have 50 lots of 400 acres. There are some economic

limitations because an RS, unless you're an infill project, you have to connect to water and sewer. But this ordinance gives more flexibility to do larger lots or less homes on a particular

development. It could be less dense, so it's less restrictive. Yes, it's less restrictive. It allows developers to ask for more options. Thank you. So for the Barton Acres, he wanted more acreage and

less homes, fewer homes, which I think the neighbors were pretty satisfied with. Yes, yes. And currently he couldn't do that. That's correct. Any other questions from the commission? Does this affect

the minimum lot size whatsoever? There's no minimum lot size in RS, generally speaking, but each RS case goes through the public hearing process. It has to include a conceptual plan that shows the

average lot size, where the lots are, and that kind of thing. And what did this come out of? This came out of the board committee, our supervisor's committee review. Several board members who have

dealt with this particular issue, again, we've had two zoning cases that are current or in the recent past that weren't one unit per acre. Those board members brought this to the attention of the

community development committee, and then they, you know, awarded it on to the planning commission and the board for authorization. So two board members forwarded it to the community development

committee who forwarded it further into the process. How big could the lot be in a situation like this? So it's not restricting it up or down? No. It's just relative to the common areas and the total

acreage for roads and common areas? Yes, as you go up and down, so if you're at 0.8 units per acre, you don't have to provide a lot of the amenities that you do have to apply if you're doing three

units per acre. So at 0.8 units per acre, which would be allowed if this ordinance approved, you don't have to do curb and gutter, you don't have to do open space, you don't have to do sidewalks, you

don't have to do street trees. Whereas if you're doing three units per acre, you have to have a higher percentage of open space, you have to have sidewalks, you have to have street trees, you have to

have curb and gutter, you have to have different amenities. So if you want to get denser, you have to provide more for the community and the public. If you want to do one acre lots, it's minimal

infrastructure, other than that, you have to have public roads and you have to have water and sewer unless you're an infill project. Thank you. Do you have any questions? Yeah, Mr. Chair, if I could

just try to clarify a little bit. So I think we've had two examples recently that Mr. Pompey tried to go over where one was an infill project, I think they wanted to build five or seven lots. And we

were saying, no, you actually have to put two more lots in here because you're not meeting the base density. And then the other case, they wanted to have larger lots, even though they wanted to have

water and sewer. But we had to tell them, you can't meet the base density, so you'd have to add more lots, which seems to kind of be counterintuitive when projects seem to be good projects. And we had

to tell them to add lots to make it work to meet the zoning requirements. So it's not something that's going to happen often, but as projects are infill or a little more difficult, they're not the

perfect square and you have environmental features and all, they may not be able to get a lot of small lots in there. And I think this RS is sort of a one size fits all zoning district and not all

properties are one size fits all. So this gives some flexibility. So just to be clear, this applies whether we have infrastructure in the area or not. Is that correct? This would apply to anywhere in

the RS district. As long as it's RS. Seeing none, no comment. We will open the public hearing again. Is there anybody here that'd like to speak and support our opposition? I just want to clarify about

the minimum because in the previous screens, it said the minimum was four lots per acre, but now you're saying there will not be a minimum at all. I'll let staff clarify that. Four lots per acre is

the maximum. Four dwelling is the maximum someone can ask for. Right now, they had to ask for at least one unit per acre. So right now, if they have 100 acres, they have to have 100 lots. They can ask

for up to 400 lots. Now, if this ordinance has been approved, if they have 100 acres, they can have zero to 400 lots, depending on where they are in the zoning case. But each RS zoning district has to

have a conceptual plan that's reviewed and goes through the process. So it's not like someone can buy 100 acres and do 400 lots. They have to go through the process. But again, right now, if they have

100 acres, they have to ask for 100 houses. If this is approved, they can ask for zero, 10, 20, 50, whatever the case may be based on that site. Does that answer your question? So the maximum, they

can still do the maximum of four lots per acre, since you said it was a maximum, not a minimum. Okay. Yes. The zoning ordinance allows up to four units per acre. But as it goes, it would be our RS

requires a rezoning. The concept, the comprehensive plan now says a max of three units per acre. So it'd be pretty unusual to get four units per acre through the planning commission and board through

a rezoning. So what has happened in the past when somebody asked like Mr. Faber mentioned one case, they asked for a certain density and then we told them they couldn't have that much does. I mean,

this is a very rare case and it's only happened in recent history because typically a developer wants to build as many as they can. Yes. Yes. So in the bar maker's case, they're applicants waiting to

see this ordinance approved so they can move forward. The other case, you know, there's other things going on with the conference of plan and that kind of thing. So that case was withdrawn. So this

hasn't really come up before. So again, the applicants are waiting to see what happens with this or they withdraw their application. Is it more likely to happen in an area that does not have water and

sewer? In RS, unless you're in fill, you're required to have water and sewer. So like in the Honey Hawk case, they were building their own system. I think what's more likely to have the lower density

is if you're an infill project surrounded by subdivisions that have larger lots or if you're on the edge of the suburban service area where, you know, you're transitioning to the rural parts of the

county. That's how both projects were categorized one or the other. It is complicated and confusing. So appreciate the question. Any other questions from the commission? We'll close the public hearing

as well. Time for a motion, Mr. Howson. I'll move that the planning commission recommend approval of ordinance 26-16 as proposed. We have a motion from Mr. Howson. Second by Mr. Abbott. All in favor

say aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion carries. Next item on the agenda is miscellaneous. Does anyone have any miscellaneous items? Staff has two announcements, Mr. Chair, if you don't mind. One

announcement is we're working on the Route 30 small area plan and the second community meeting will be next Tuesday in Ashland at the Hinnover Arts and Activity Center. The second announcement is that

today is Ms. Westfall's birthday. So wish her a happy birthday. Where's the cake? Happy birthday. Happy birthday. Thank you. Nice. So you're legal now. Congratulations. Yes. Twenty one today. And our

third announcement is we did hire a principal planner who will be responsible for the heading up the small area plans and the comprehensive plan. So he starts on November 3rd. I believe it is. So

we'll we'll make an opportunity perhaps next month for introduce him to the commission. Good. Thank you for this honor. Seeing none, we will close the meeting. Appreciate y'all staying.