Planning Commission Regular Meeting   9/8/2026

Six o'clock.

We'll bring the Albemarle County Planning Commission for September 8th, 2026 to order.

As always, the public access.

Thank you.

We're bringing the September 8th, 2026 Planning Commission to order.

As always, the public can access and participate in the meeting through information posted on the Albemarle County website, specifically on the Planning Commission homepage and the Albemarle County calendar.

During the meeting, there will be opportunities for the public comment and specifically agenda items where input is invited.

Ms. Brown?

Here.

Ms. Firehock?

Here.

Ms. King?

Here.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you.

Members of the public, if there's any members of the public that would like to speak to matters that are not in today's agenda, please voice the microphone.

Seeing none, we'll move on to the consent agenda.

I move to approve the consent agenda as presented.

Second.

Okay.

Ms. King.

Aye.

Ms. Firehock.

Aye.

Mr. Carrazana.

Aye.

Mr. Clayborne.

Aye.

Hello.

Ms. Brown.

Aye.

All right.

Moving right along to the public hearing.

We have CMA 2025-10 Airport Road Commercial.

Yes, thank you Mr.

Chair and good evening members of the Commission.

My name is JT Newberry and I'm a senior planner with the Department of Community Development and I'll be providing staff's presentation tonight for our rezoning known as Airport Road Commercial ZMA 2025 number 10.

First, I'd like to quickly provide just a really high level overview of the proposal.

This application seeks to rezone a total of six parcels from a mix of R1 residential and highway commercial zoning to just one singular district, HC zoning with proffers.

The development would be subject to a conceptual plan that divides the acreage into two distinct development blocks.

and the proposal also includes a special exception to disturb areas within 20 feet of residentially zoned parcels.

This disturbance would enable the installation of a 30-foot buffer that exceeds our zoning ordinance requirements and would also provide for a pedestrian connection between Airport Acres Road and Airport Road.

Next, I'd like to look at an aerial view to help orient us to the area that we'll be discussing.

The area outlined in this greenish-teal color shows the limits of the project area and I'll use the laser pointer to just point out a couple of the immediately adjacent surrounding uses.

North of the project area is Airport Acre subdivision.

There's currently about 40 residential single-family detached units there.

To the east is a motor vehicle sales use.

Just south of that is a retail use that has a tobacco shop and U-Haul rental.

On the corner is an automobile service station and car wash sheets, and then immediately south is Airport Auto.

To the west is North Fork, which is a very large development, but just the southern tip, including the extension of Lewis and Clark Drive, is just west of the project area.

So over the past few years, this area has seen multiple legislative approvals, and many of those have added residential uses and or reduced non-residential uses.

And there are just a few I wanted to highlight for the commission.

So north of Airport Road, I just mentioned the North Fork site.

Back in 2024, the board approved

A rezoning to a portion of that site to neighborhood model, which allowed up to 1400 residential units.

Then looking across 29, there's the North Point development, which recently amended its rezoning to add up to 707 additional units.

Looking south, earlier this year, the board approved an additional 40 units in Hollymead Town Center Area C and also eliminated the requirement for non-residential use there.

Number five is a project we currently have under review that is proposing to rezone the acreage from RA to PRD for up to 147 residential units.

And then just south of Proffit Road across 29 is a project that was known as Maplewood that rezoned a property from C1 to PRD to allow up to 102 residential units.

but there have also been several approvals related to non-residential uses and the ones I'd like to point out are south and west of the project area.

Looking on the screen, numbers one and four are related to a recent industrial approval for more than 130,000 square feet of industrial space and an associated industrial office across nine different buildings.

Number four would be a self-service storage facility at just over 90,000 square feet that recently received initial site plan approval.

Under construction rate now is an expansion of micro air.

That's an expansion of the office space in addition to the existing warehouse.

Number three, the board recently approved special exceptions to allow two 1 million gallon water tanks associated with the RWSA pump station.

And then finally, another infrastructure project would be the extension of Berkmar Drive that would have a roundabout at the intersection of Lewis and Clark Drive and Airport Road that is currently in the right-of-way phase and is estimated to be completed in the summer of 2030.

So now with all of that context in mind, here's the current zoning map of the project area.

The two parcels adjacent to Airport Road shown in red are zoned highway commercial with proffers.

And then the four parcels fronting on Airport Acres Road shown in green are zoned R1 residential.

There are some overlay districts that apply, one being the entrance corridor.

So future development would be subject to the architectural review board.

There's just a little pocket of managed steep slopes approximately right here on the site.

And then it's also located in the airport impact area overlay district.

Here's a look at the future land use map, or FLUM, of AC44.

The project area includes portions of neighborhood mixed use and neighborhood residential.

Commercial uses are a primary use of the neighborhood mixed use land use category.

and then neighborhood scale non-residential uses including commercial are a recommended secondary land use for the neighborhood residential land use category shown in yellow.

Here's a look at the applicant's concept plan and this was included as attachment three to the staff report.

The plan proposes to divide the area into two development blocks shown in brown and blue on the screen.

At a very high level, the proffers aim to have fewer and less intensive available uses in block two.

Those are the blocks adjacent to the residentially zoned parcels that are along Airport Acres Road.

and then the proffers for block one aim to reduce the overall traffic generated by the site.

I'll talk a little bit more about proposed uses in just a second.

I just wanted to quickly note

The estimated developable area within Block 2 is approximately 2.6 acres and then the estimated developable area for Block 1 is 2.3 acres.

The concept plan also highlights improvements to connectivity and transportation.

It proposes a vehicular connection between Airport Acres Road and Airport Road, which would be in this general location here, shown by the arrows.

That would occur via a 50-foot dedication to VDOT, and there's a sidewalk proposed on the eastern side of that vehicular connection.

The plan also shows two 30-foot buffers, one along the northern edge and then one along the western edge.

There are enhanced plantings within both of these buffers.

For the buffer along the western edge, there's also proposed a Class A trail that would contribute to pedestrian connectivity between Airport Acres Road and Airport Road.

Notably, this 30-foot buffer on the northern edge is not required by ordinance, but would help mitigate the impacts of any proposed development in Block 2.

So just to talk a little bit more about the proposed uses, I mentioned that the uses in block one were meant to generate fewer vehicle trips.

That's accomplished mainly by limiting the uses as shown in the proffers included as attachment four.

Those would be auto-centric uses, things like drive-through windows, car wash, automobile service station.

And then Block 2 adds to that elimination of those uses, but goes further to add things that might be incompatible with residential areas, so auto repair, storage yard.

The full list is included at the end of the applicant's proffer statement.

Staff believes the proposed uses as shown in the proffer statement in conjunction with the other proffers allow this proposal to achieve consistency with the comp plan.

So just to point out a couple of those.

The additional limitations in Block 2 would be the building height.

It would be limited to three stories.

And then also the building footprint would be limited to 20,000 square feet.

These limitations are consistent with the neighborhood residential land use category.

The applicant is also seeking a special exception from the 20-foot use buffer that's adjacent to residential zoning districts.

And the applicant's full narrative is included as attachment five.

But as I mentioned, this disturbance would allow the installation of a buffer that exceeds what's required by ordinance and would contribute to additional connectivity for pedestrians between Airport Acres Road and Airport Road.

Importantly, there currently is no connectivity between those two areas.

There are no sidewalks along Airport Acres Road and currently no way for outside of a vehicle for residents to get to Airport Road.

Staff is recommending approval of the special exception requests in both of the locations shown on the screen.

Overall, staff is recommending approval of this request after finding two positive aspects and identifying no concerns.

The application is consistent with the primary or secondary recommended uses in the FLUM, and it would provide an interconnection that enhances the overall transportation network.

Staff has identified no concerns at this time.

I appreciate the kind of the proppers that are networking and kind of knitting these areas together, knowing in the future they're really going to change and need to be connected.

But Airport Acres Road seems to be a pretty quiet street.

And so I question the need for

vehicular access along the easement that would be granted to VDOT like perhaps decades from now as maybe the area changes where the existing residential is but I can understand you know why that might create concerns for residents around there because I just don't really see a need for it.

and I guess the other comment I have is looking at the buffers.

Those look like great plans, but I think the one that creates a trail next to the existing occupied property

because you're introducing kind of people in that area where you have like a significant proposed change between the type of property as it is right now with single family and quiet and this kind of larger, more active area, I would think it would be more thoughtful to make that wider and give the existing property owner a little bit more of a buffer

One thing I would note,

As far as the interconnection that we're looking for, I mean, you're right.

Part of it is just trying to get good planning and look with an eye towards the future.

Part of it also is Airport Acres on the southern side, it connects with 29 and two locations.

The southern connection is kind of like just right above that blue box that you see there.

There's a crossover there that's pretty close to the airport intersection.

And as we move forward with planning in the 29 corridor and trying to maintain some of the regional connectivity there.

We're concerned that crossover may be too close to the airport road intersection.

And we see this potentially as an opportunity as we're getting ready to just start a study with VDOT at that intersection.

We're just finishing the scoping of that now.

So over the next year, we'll be looking at potential transportation improvements at the airport 29 intersection.

And it could well be that that crossover is something that, again, is too close and may need to be eliminated or converted to sort of a, it's slightly at the top of the page there, the image, the R cut that's at the northern entrance.

So trying to provide connectivity in ways for the airport residents and airport acres residents to be able to go northbound easily is something that we're looking to do in this particular circumstance.

So, you know, unfortunately, our exhibit doesn't really show all the future improvements, but by making this connection, residents can come out onto Airport Road,

travel towards the airport, use that roundabout to come back to the intersection of airport 29 and then be able to go north on 29.

That's actually related to, yeah, I was going to ask about the road right away.

Oh yeah, the initial comp plan

for this area, the master plan of this area, Places 29, did show a connection in this area.

A subsequent version of that master plan, the board elected not to show sort of smaller streets.

They kept some of the big ones like, you know, Berkmar as on there, but there were smaller interconnections shown on the previous plan, and I think that

Okay it's been floating around a little bit here and there.

is what I'm hearing.

Yeah, I mean, anybody familiar with my fellow colleagues know that I'm very fond of neighborhoods having two exits, and sometimes we approve ones with only one plus a bollard.

But this neighborhood already has two exits, which is why I was wondering if that was a big factor, if you're looking to close one, or just it would make it easier to get into the roundabout.

Yeah.

I don't know what the result will be.

They would still, even if that were to be crossed, that crossing were to be crossed, they'd still have a right in right out of the existing, of course, southern entrance.

They just wouldn't be able to easily turn and go north.

I was wondering if, in the proposal, I got a pretty good sense of the land use and the development blocks and the acreage of what's in the teal line.

I was kind of curious more about two things.

One is just, you know, the actual sort of economic development impacts affected by this.

Are there more jobs?

Are there more, like, what's actually going to happen on this land?

Yeah I can I can respond to that so

In the proffers and the use table, I think some of the most attractive uses to our target industries are provided as buy right uses in this area.

So those general land use categories around manufacturing, processing, assembly, storage, warehousing, distribution,

Certainly in this area of the county, there are big drivers of economic development, like AstraZeneca site, and then the associated companies that I think will be coming to places like North Fork.

From a site selection point of view, I think a site like this offers a nice diversity of sites and an opportunity if maybe North Fork is not in your price range and there's not land available in other places.

Or we can speak to that maybe later, but I think the applicant is going to be in the best position to answer that.

And I'll add to anything that might come after their comments.

Those are my first questions.

This is one question regarding, I'm on page six of the staff report, where it has a table that shows location, regulation proposed and AC44 recommendations towards the bottom of the page.

Just curious, what was staff's conversation, right?

Clearly there was no concerns yielded in the end of the staff report, but where it says in block number one, there's a maximum of 65 foot height being proposed

Building footprint not regulated, and as you compare that to AC44 recommendations, it was starkly different.

Could you just share a little bit about staff's conversation and how that did not yield a concern?

Yeah, I think principally that was related to the size of the site and the shape and the overall developability of it.

I think we felt like based on the setbacks and other applicable regulations that achieving a form or intensity of development that would not be consistent with AC44 was unlikely just based on the developable area.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Yes, thank you.

I think I understand this.

Can you go to the previous slide, I think, or maybe it's the one that shows the right of way.

Thank you.

So even though Parcel 40 is not a part of the rezoning, it's the same owner.

One of my questions, which again I think is probably an applicant question, is about the concept plan and what types of businesses they foresee.

But one of my questions that you might be able to answer is the location of the connector road or the right-of-way.

It looks like there may not be space for development to the, if we're looking at the photo, to the left of the right of way.

Would you agree with that?

I would just say that there are multiple factors that we sort of wrestle with in this particular

rezoning, a lot of them very technical.

Much of it was as it didn't connect to the airport road, a certain separation distance from the roundabout is going to be required.

That arrow shows that at about 230, 240 feet from the roundabout, B dot wanted 250.

That's basically what I'm getting at.

So the future concept plan of whatever they're going to build includes this roadway.

Yes.

In some location.

Yeah, it's a great question.

The commercial districts in our zoning ordinance require a 20-foot use buffer for any properties that are commercially zoned that are adjacent to residential districts.

I guess what I don't, I have two problems with it.

If you go to the one that shows the section of the path, if you're taking, we require 20 feet, we're adding 10 feet, we're taking down natural existing vegetation, we're putting in new vegetation that will take forever to grow, and we're putting eight feet

of PATH that's not any vegetation.

So you're basically not ending up with 30 feet of buffer because you're in essence clearing eight feet of it.

So if you're going to put a sidewalk on the road, that is the pedestrian connection.

That's going to happen at the time of development.

I would prefer to see 30 feet of natural vegetation.

that is already existing that we're not clearing out to put in something else or maybe even 40 feet or maybe even 50 feet.

I think one of the things, this is a personal thing that I have is that when we talk about buffers specifically from commercial areas, I mean, 30 feet is from me to her or less, right?

So that's not a lot of buffer.

So I understand what the ordinance is.

I'd rather see it remain natural because on that one border,

the upper one for block one, it's already vegetated.

I don't know if that's the right word, but it already has, yeah.

So that was just, that was kind of my, it's more of a comment, I understand, but my question related to if the road is going to be an access road for the property, no matter what, and it's going to have a sidewalk, why are we putting a walking path 20 feet from, you know, 50 feet?

And then that said, if it ends up happening, I don't know if I'd be the only one to think this, but if you're going to put up eight foot path and it says pedestrian, should it be multimodal?

And what is the minimum for that?

I mean,

He just said that he didn't hear me, so I will repeat it, that's okay.

I had a question on just back to the road, just trying to get a little bit more history on did that road come from in conversations with the applicant that it would be so the staff recommendations for that road or was that just offered by

The genesis was the first review of the rezoning application and looking back at the master plan and seeing that at one time after doing a site visit and looking at the distance between the two roads,

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for Seth?

Okay, we'll open it for the applicant.

Good evening.

My name is Kendra Moon.

I'm here on behalf of the owner of this property for this rezoning.

I'll probably gloss over some of this because I think JT did a really good job describing the context of the area.

Just know that we were taking into account Airport Ager subdivision and the planned extension of Berkmar Drive and the Roundabout Innovation Drive.

And I guess I'll just note, so as mentioned, this proposal originally did not have the road.

It was just a rezoning to highway commercial of the four properties in the back, the R1 properties.

And then after the first submission and comments with staff, we discussed the

The roadway connection as a benefit to the county and also the two highway commercial properties in the front of the site were added.

So we did have one community meeting for the original application and then revised it and had a second community meeting.

So Airport Auto is under the same ownership and I'll just go ahead and answer some of the questions I heard.

There are not currently plans to expand Airport Auto.

In fact, the owner has been looking at relocating it and he's aware that the market will drive probably the relocation of that eventually.

And when this does redevelop, he imagines that Airport Auto will move

But there are not plans for that currently.

And then we also include this VDOT detention basin.

We show it on our graphics just to note that the owner has been in conversation with VDOT about taking over that basin and potentially redeveloping that site.

It's already zoned C1.

But again, that's not, we're still in conversations.

So I'm just mentioning that as an aside.

I don't think anything new to note so I'll skip over the existing zoning.

So I do want to give a little bit of background about how the trail came about.

And so obviously the road came from a comment from the county.

I think we're open to phasing that or you know, we're open to feedback on the road.

We really just need, you know, connection to the site from Airport Road.

We the

Originally, we

imagined sidewalks on either side of the road and I think it was a comment that it might be kind of an amenity to airport acres to have a trail connection for one side since it's probably unlikely that we need sidewalks on both sides of the road so that is how the trail came about and then it was like oh well we can put it in the vegetated area so you know

Again, that I think is open to change.

The main point was just to get pedestrian connection between Airport Acres Road and Airport Road.

And then as far as the developable area to the west of this road, this location again is in

influx right now.

The reason we're showing it approximately at this corner of Airport Acres Road is because of the best site distance available, but we'll need to work through with VDOT about where that gets located.

And then same off of Airport Acres Road, as Michael mentioned, we need to make sure that we have the proper spacing from the planned roundabout.

So the exact location is not known, but there is

potential for this western area to largely be like, I won't say undevelopable, but you're not going to see a massive building there if the location of this road does stay on this side of the property.

Let me see if there's anything else worth mentioning.

I'm kind of hopping around based on the questions that were answered or that were asked.

Oh, to the question of why not keep existing vegetation in this area and why disturb it and replant it?

And the question is, or the answer is because there will be a lot of regrading anticipated if the road does have to go right in this location.

So it's likely that some of the vegetation will be disturbed and replanted.

And again, we don't have a grading plan for this site at this time.

So trying to make sure we're protecting existing neighbors, but also leaving it flexible for the engineering challenges that will come with developing this site.

And I wanted to touch on one other thing, but maybe it'll come to me.

As discussed, this road location is in flux.

As far as the proffers, so what we're

I guess to answer one of the other questions about what is the proposed development on the site going to be and since it is open-ended I will just say that originally it was the first application that we submitted was for self-service storage and then the owner

He's very open to feedback.

As you can see, he was open to adding a road to a property and promising to build it.

So he is open to what the market says, basically.

So we revised to keep it open ended because there was potential for the plans to change.

And at this time, it's

We're still considering self-service storage in development block two, but it's not solidified yet.

But we have elected to proffer out many of the uses that we think would be the most disturbing to neighbors, the highest traffic and noise generators, or just the most unsightly uses in development block two, especially, but also in the front parcels.

So just to clarify, the road is to be built by the developer and then dedicated to VDOT.

And we have examples of the density of those screening buffers, and that would be proffered so that we're committing to a certain density of vegetation in those areas.

So in the first community meeting before the road was added, we did not have any neighbors in attendance.

We did not hear any feedback about the rezoning of these properties.

So in the second community meeting after the road, we did have a few neighbors in attendance and we did hear some feedback that

This road could potentially be negative to them, adding additional traffic.

I will say it's intended to be used for Airport Acres residents, not necessarily leading people to Airport Acres Road.

Currently Airport Acres has two connections to 29 only, so it's not

Regardless of how people use it, that was not the intention to drive people to the subdivision.

And the concerns are that

Apparently people already use this as a cut through to 29 is what we heard and there are concerns of people using this as a cut through in the future to get to Airport Road or to Berkmar.

So I'll just point out that if that were to happen, I imagine it would be this leg which does pass by three parcels, two of which do not have a home on them.

The site has already been heavily cleared.

There are not significant environmental features on the site.

And as far as impacts, I'll just mention on the threat of traffic, we did coordinate with VDOT on their planned roundabout for additional traffic generated to the site that it would not have a negative impact on the planned roundabout level of service at Innovation Drive.

Thank you.

I just wanted to, I guess, kind of, I think you said it, but I just want to kind of confirm it's more or less speculative rezoning.

It is speculative at this time.

There's not a specific plan in place.

Okay.

That was my main question.

And I appreciate the clarification on some of the other things.

I do have a question.

I saw some specifics in the statement about the vegetative buffer regarding species of plants.

I don't know if the way that the conditions are that the future developer would be restricted to only those plants or is that

More of an idea that is suggestive but what I don't see is any information about the required size of the initial planting and I do think that that can be really important and something that I would suggest that you maybe work with staff on because in my experience you know it's quite possible current landowner may not be the

the developer.

So then future person comes in, they are going to have to live by these rules.

And in my experience, they're going to do the bare minimum to meet the requirement.

So as much information that we can have in there about size, I think is important.

There's a good example in my neighborhood where there's a cell phone tower that was supposed to have vegetation around it and they planted

trees this tall that died within six months and there's actually no vegetation.

Yeah, thank you.

I think that's a really good point.

I have one other quick question.

Their residential development with this rezoning would require special use permits.

A question on the path.

I believe you mentioned that at one point it was seen as a on both sides of the road, you would have a sidewalk or and then it shifted to in the woods.

And I'm just what did that come from any community conversations or that there was a preference for it to be in the woods?

I'm just thinking from a safety standpoint, it's probably not the best thing to do.

And you know, you can obviously light it a lot easier.

from your buildings and near the buildings.

It's a short stretch.

It's not like you're going to go for a stroll in the woods.

You're going to a commercial district.

To be honest, it came, I think, from just a comment from county, like a suggestion on our concept plan.

I think it was to help kind of limit the right of way.

We were contemplating, honestly, removing one side of sidewalk altogether and requesting like an exception, or at this point, we wouldn't request it, but in the future, just because we weren't sure the need for sidewalks on either side.

So I think that was kind of the suggestion of compromise of like, well, maybe not remove it entirely, but make it a trail.

I think it was, to be honest, it was not in conversation with the community.

I can see at this point that yeah, maybe that's not a

Thank you for Stacy's standpoint, using the sidewalk would probably be better.

And then you can maximize the amount of screen buffer that you can have there instead of clearing a bunch of trees for the trail.

If we don't have any more questions for the applicant, thank you.

and we will open it for public hearing and we will ask members of the public that would like to speak to this matter.

I have a list of two names.

Tom Packer, and Ellen Phipps.

So please, Tom, if you can approach the microphone.

You each have three minutes to speak.

When it goes from green to yellow, you have one minute left.

My name is Tom Packett.

I live in Airport Acres.

Not a property adjoining it, but very close to it is a concern for me and my wife.

Number one, everybody in that community is on well water.

We do not have public water at all and sewer.

I think they have a negative impact on everyone in the community.

As far as the road, I've talked to people in the community, I can't find one person that wants that road there or would use that road for any reason.

I think it's completely unnecessary in the development.

If you have concessions in place, why do you want to make concessions to them anyway?

They're there for a reason.

Hi, thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Ellen Phipps.

I'm here with my husband, David, and some of our neighbors.

We're the people that will be impacted by this project.

I think it might be hopefully useful to hear from us.

I do want to draw your attention.

I believe one of our neighbors, Jennifer Hoggs, has submitted a letter.

She just did a super job of articulating, I think, what many of us feel in that letter.

She just details it in a very good way, better than what I could do.

My husband and I moved to Airport Acres about 29 years ago.

We moved there because it was quiet.

It was a little bit secluded.

Being so close to 29, but nobody really knows it's there.

So the only traffic that we get are people that are just coming to

home or visiting people that are there.

So there's a lot of concern about additional traffic safety.

Many of the neighbors, myself included, walk on a regular basis.

We walk through the neighborhood with our dogs.

There are kids that ride bikes in the neighborhood.

And we're just very concerned about the safety aspect.

I understand what I heard tonight was the road wasn't

intended for traffic to come in just out.

And that would be a pretty unique road, one like I've never seen before, unless it was actually a one-way street.

So that I just found interesting.

So we also have concerns about light pollution, noise pollution as well with the additional proposed buildings.

We, most of us, as Tom stated, most of us in the neighborhood cannot see any justifiable reason for the project.

I travel north for work.

I don't have any problems getting out in the morning.

If you want to fix that, make it easier, put in a light, that might help.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

That's all I had on my list.

So if there was anybody else who'd like to speak.

Madam Clerk, do we have anybody online?

Would the applicant like to respond to any comments that you heard?

All right.

Thank you.

I'll say I'm concerned about the lack of

Clarity around the intention for the road at this point because I think it's a significant move in this proposal and the timeline is

is pretty muddy for that.

And it's really hard not knowing the location.

If it's in the vicinity of what we're seeing on the concept plan, and that reduces some of the development density that could happen on the west side, that could be advantageous, I guess, to the neighbor.

But again, there's no guarantee on that.

Sure, I have been looking at this and normally I like to allow things to happen, right?

I like for businesses to thrive, I like for people to have great homes that they can afford, all these things.

And I'm concerned mostly here about the future land use map in terms of our housing goals.

It's not going to make a gigantic dent, but our own county's publications talk about how residential construction has not kept up with the pace of demand, right?

We've got, I just jotted down the numbers, more than 10,000 people who can't find housing they can afford, more and more people commuting from other counties, other localities.

And I think the latest numbers, we're going to need something like 13,000 homes for the 30,000 people moving here in the next 15 years.

We've got six acres here that are in currently residential zoning in the future land use map as neighborhood residential.

That's not the densest, but three to six homes per acre, that could be 36 nice townhouses in a space that's got like 600 and some feet of street frontage.

and I think I would be you know so at the end of the day it kind of comes down for me like what public need is served by removing potential homes from from the flump from the future land use map from that capacity and if it was there could be a good need like if the business is really thriving and you know we do need like mechanic shops and it was going to expand and it was you know really needed to fill out those six acres

Okay, I would be more willing to really consider that, I think.

I think just expanding or just taking six acres out of residential potential capacity for essentially kind of speculary zoning for commercial, I don't think, you know, so I used to play SimCity a lot and city skylines, right?

And you know, you have like the little bar for residential green and like our bar is way up here.

Like there's a lot of demand and the demand for commercial is there.

We could use more commercial, but like, you know, right now taking things out of the demand bar and putting it in the less demand bar.

does not strike me as a high priority.

So that's kind of where I tend to land on this.

I would like to see the land better used.

I don't know that the neighbors who value the quiet neighborhood would necessarily agree with me about having townhouses built there in the future by some future landowner or the current landowner.

But I think, you know, looking at our future land use map, that's something we'd be a lot more amenable to considering than just a sort of

that I would be more minimal to considering than just a commercial.

One thing just to take this kind of the next level too, I do agree in the applicant's language, the narrative referred to the four parcels as sort of underutilized and unorganized.

And that's true to have just two homes on six acres right in the development area is right by the highway is a little while at this time.

And I would love for the county to identify the parcels throughout the development area that are similarly underutilized and unorganized.

And we can find good candidates and actually invest in social housing for our teachers and our firefighters and our nurses and our hairstylists and our grocery workers and the people that now have to come in from Greene or Waynesboro or Savannah.

I think some of the things I would like to discuss as a group along with my fellow commissioners here would be depth of buffer, but I think the housing piece is something I hope we can discuss in this greater detail.

A couple of things, think of like the huge economic development went with AstraZeneca, which will need more residential and housing.

I think it's one piece to sort of look at as that Northern part starts to grow.

but it also I think sheds a light on, you know, you threw out some pretty impressive statistics around housing.

I'm curious if, you know, staff can maybe weigh in and as you start to look at the comprehensive plan and our inventory of residential properties or parcels that we have now, like what can you afford to give up just in general, right?

Like, hey, I think at this rate,

We need, maybe it's not R1, but we need to have housing and maybe it needs to be more denser in the urban area.

If there is any kind of metric you can kind of provide, if you are able to tonight, but maybe that's good for future conversation, like what can we afford to sacrifice, right?

I think the answer probably isn't a whole lot, but this will start to weigh in on these kinds of proposals coming forth.

And then I think the last piece is just a little bit of a concern as we start xing out uses.

Always get a certain that you're going to forget something, right?

And so I'm not saying yay or nay to that, just I get a little nervous about that and we start crossing out things.

How's it going, everyone?

I just want to provide another vantage point here.

And so, yes, we need housing, but we also need some commercial round housing.

There's a lot of housing developments that are going on north 29 right now.

More coming.

And we also want to encourage the live work area so that we minimize traffic and how far people are driving.

So having an appropriate development here of commercial, and we still don't know what it is.

I will say I would be disappointed if it is storage, just because I think what is coming to this area is significant.

in terms of the industries and there could be an opportunity to think beyond self-storage.

So I did want to provide that vantage point because housing, we don't just want to build a bunch of bedroom communities.

Believe me, I came from California.

I just spent 10 years there.

I saw plenty of those and just seeing the rows of cars leaving at five o'clock in the morning to make their two-hour commute.

to LA and then showing up at eight or nine and not really having a community.

You're not even knowing your neighbors.

So I would just, I think there's a balance here.

So I'm not opposed to the right development here from a commercial standpoint.

I do think there are some issues here.

I am not convinced about the need to connect the road.

If indeed, in the future, we find that we have to close one of those entrances, we can connect the road at that point.

We can leave a number of feet to connect it, and they can be connected in the future.

If that's required, it can be done pretty easily.

But I don't see why it has to connect now.

I do think that that trail

needs to be moved into a sidewalk that's well lit.

And we're not creating a little, you know, nature trail here that goes to an industrial area.

OK, when I was first looking at this on paper, just in our staff report, I was like, OK, there's commercial.

And this is just expanding this commercial area in this already existing commercial district.

I questioned the need for the connector road.

So then I went and drove around the site.

So apologies for the big blue car driving crazily.

I was trying to figure out where I was going.

You know, you go in and experience that neighborhood.

It's like a little tranquil, hidden gem, a little island.

And yes, it's surrounded by commercial.

But that to me makes me want to protect it more.

Right.

So I don't see what

going against what the comprehensive plan says that calls for this to continue to be residential.

I don't see what the rationale is for that.

And to your points about, well, what is the proposal for this?

Self-storage was put forward as a potential use.

We don't need.

any more of those.

Everyone have a garage sale.

Stop storing all that extra junk.

But honestly, I mean, small businesses need more storage.

But honestly, I don't see a compelling case has been made for this speculative rezoning.

It's simply going to raise the commercial value of this property that if they want to sell it in its own commercial, they will get a lot more money for this property than they would if it stays in the current configuration.

So I don't see any compelling reason to rezone this.

to highway commercial.

I think it should, the part that's residential should remain residential.

And yes, I agree.

You could make the case that to buffer it, even from that commercial layer on the other side, you would do some more dense, like cottage, dense cottages close together or some little townhouses, but you could get some more density and some more housing there, which we sorely need close to town.

The road makes no sense to me.

The connector road is a road to nowhere.

The neighbors don't need it.

And frankly, they don't need the pedestrian trail to go out there.

What are you walking to?

You're walking to a six lane road.

And then the only thing I could figure out I would walk to is maybe you have an account at the bank and you want to walk there.

Although, does anyone go to the bank anymore?

Don't we all just bank on our phones?

OK.

So I just don't see anything you would be walking to.

There is no destination once you leave that neighborhood.

So that makes no sense.

Neither does the nature trail to nowhere.

So forget the road.

Forget the trail.

And do not, I'm voting no on this, I can tell you right now.

I'm happy to hear from MK.

Maybe she'll give you a shattering argument to change my mind.

But just understanding that neighborhood and the need to protect the longstanding residents, I don't see any reason why my vote would change to a yes on this one.

All right.

I, so my caveat, my background is real estate.

So you know, there's something known as highest and best use.

And when you own a piece of property, and you want to use it for something, you know, potentially the owner here is trying to make the property marketable.

If the market wants commercial, the market wants commercial.

And if the market wants residential, the market wants residential.

I don't think that my intention as a commissioner is not to try to dictate what the market wants or what the market needs.

I would not be against a right of way, which is what's requested.

for a potential future road.

But I agree that the development itself is, if this entire parcel is developed in blocks one and two the way that the concept plan is, there's no benefit to these two parcels to have an entrance into the neighborhood.

So if the neighborhood doesn't want the entrance, just don't do it.

I do think the right of way, leaving it that way, doesn't hurt anyone.

You know, I could foresee the entrance into the commercial development coming in and having

a fire exit there with the bollards where people don't actually drive cars back and forth but maybe there is a walk a path where residents could walk to what will be a future commercial so you're saying there's nothing to walk to because they haven't built it yet

but potentially there could be a doctor's office in here or a coffee shop or any of those types of uses could be in this building and then the people from Airport Acres would want to walk to those things without having to crawl through the weeds or whatever.

So I could see a need for some connectivity for the neighborhood to get to whatever the future thing is but I don't see a need for the future commercial use to need to get into the neighborhood.

So that would be sort of a compromise, I would think.

I agree.

I think having the path on the boundary line to the West makes no sense.

I think it should be on the road.

And I think as much natural existing vegetation that is on that particular

Boundary should just remain and not be taken out.

I'd love to see more buffer on all of the residential sides than what's currently proposed.

I know that is asking more than what the ordinance asks for, but because I agree with some of the other comments about protecting this existing neighborhood and the sanctuary that they currently have, I think increasing that number would do a lot.

and I could see block one changing to residential or higher density residential versus, excuse me, block two being maybe residential instead of commercial or maybe even a mixed use.

Interested to know what you think Michael about

A mixed use.

You know, we've talked about, I think I've brought this up before.

I'm a fan of some of these concepts like what they have in Williamsburg, right, where there's a shop, and they've actually tried this in the other parcel at Hollymead, right, up above at Lockwood.

There's a building where it's supposed to be commercial on the main level, and there's an apartment building above.

and I used to manage that building and it set, of course, it was completed construction by this owner, by the way, in 2008.

So it's set empty for a long time, probably still is empty to be honest, the ground floor commercial of that building.

But that concept where you have

maybe your Riverside shops, right?

Thank you for the question.

Under this particular rezoning, no.

The mixed use of this is a highway commercial.

There were secondary uses, but primarily this is being seen as that.

It's interesting hearing the conversation that you all talk about.

I think I don't typically sort of like

try to sort of say some things staff thinking was but I think it's it's fair to do it this particular one we've got a small corner here that you know we've seen the sheets come in there it's a it's a commercial older commercial

area.

It's an older subdivision with quite large lots.

I mean, they're over an acre.

It's a fairly low density type of neighborhood.

And I think staff was looking at this and seeing that, you know, roughly half of this, if not more of this area is commercial.

In fact, the parcel there, 32A1B3, actually, even though it's zoned, you know,

It's got a commercial use on it as a parking lot.

that was part of airport auto.

So I think we were looking at something that, yes, was not consistent with the land use plan.

All these empty lots were shown for low density residential.

And just recognizing the changes that are happening in this area.

Parts of this subdivision, parts of the subdivision that fronts along 29 that never developed would probably be something that would redevelop in the future.

And I think we were trying to be proactive with the road here.

recognizing that the center connection probably is something that will be useful in the future.

I think I tried to allude to it by talking about the crossover that will be closed.

I don't think that the road will get built by VDOT at some point in the future.

I think this is our opportunity if we were to build it is to build it now.

I appreciate the comments about the shared use path and the trail and I think that

I think we've heard loud and clear and wisely that that was maybe not the best idea.

Certainly something we've thought seriously about in this rezoning is what the transition is to the existing residential uses, especially the one that's immediately adjacent.

With that said, I think that we see this as a transitional area and to having a specific rezoning plan or what the market would actually do on this property, I think the trick here is in part trying to get the zoning lined up correctly.

and recognizing that this little small block probably wants to go in that direction and that's why we were supportive of the rezoning and saw lots of advantages of the road and future redevelopment that will probably happen at least on some of the empty parcels that are on airport acres along 29 and trying to be a little bit foresightful and try to think about these connections that need to be made in the future.

That's where staff sort of

saw that and worked with the applicant to bring with for you tonight.

And the last thing I would just say as far as the road and having all the details of the road you know this is part of the problem with having rezonings.

I can remember back when in the early 2000s, the county really worked towards trying to have all of those details.

I can remember being in the private sector and having to actually design the water and sewer lines as part of the rezoning stage.

Because if you want to change anything and you didn't have those things right, you might find yourself back in a rezoning.

and I think wisely the county has tried to move towards more general concept plans as opposed to getting all the details nailed down at a rezoning stage.

So, you know, this particular one, I tried to speak to part of the reason why it's a big fat line there for that road was some of the details that we are trying to work through with VDOT and VDOT typically, and I think rightly so, doesn't get into those kind of details at this stage.

If they're going to issue a waiver to go from 250 foot separation to 230 foot, they want to have the engineering plans.

So there we are again, back to trying to have the details at a rezoning stage.

I appreciate some of the concerns that have been elicited about the neighbor, especially over there on parcel 32A185.

that is immediately adjacent to the property and the buffering that you all are referencing is probably something that probably does make sense.

Ultimately, this is the applicant's rezoning.

Just, I think the last thing I would say is that if the right of way

is basically Proffit as part of the rezoning, but the exact location is TBD.

One of the things that somebody said I wanted to mention is it seems complicated to try to eliminate a couple of uses that we might think of right now that could be

High Impact.

And I agree with that I read through the list.

And there were definitely some uses that are allowed on both of the blocks that

If I were living next door to it, I'd rather have the McDonald's than, you know, whatever the, I don't know, there was one that was like commercial loading and unloading or, you know, I mean, there were some things that there were several things that sounded way more industrial and way less commercial to me.

And I know that's definitions and not what we're here to argue about, but I just agree with the other comment that taking out just a couple of them doesn't necessarily

Any other comments?

Mind if we put the motions on the screen?

It's Rider District, I'd be glad to propose a motion.

Second.

I found Mr. Barnes comments to be helpful for me and you know I don't and how a commercial sounds like you you cannot have housing things that you said right there is no path forward for housing by special use permit up to R-15 in the middle of emotion you can't really talk much to the applicant but like if there was a path forward

to have that flexibility for housing.

I think to me, that is an attribute that's almost like game changing to provide that flexibility.

So I'm not sure if there's anything you can do about that, but it's, I thought your comments were very helpful.

Just to remind us also, there's a lot of, also a big proponent of housing and more housing everywhere and all types of housing.

But I do agree with the chair when he said, you know, in addition to that, we need the commercial to support it.

And we want to create walkable spaces.

And that's what this potentially could do in the future.

but I also am reminded that as JT pointed out at the very beginning of his presentation there are a lot of redevelopments for housing like in this little half mile around this area so there's a big complex coming across the street there's also we just finished I think

Moving forward, the one that's on the other side of Hollymead Town Center, like behind Coles, there's an additional where it went from commercial to more housing.

So we have recently approved higher density in this very small area.

I could be wrong, and maybe the applicant or staff could speak to this, but I think the size of this development

Because of parking restrictions for something that's higher density, it might not really be feasible.

It might, you know, I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm just curious about it.

Because there is a lot of residential coming.

We will need more, but there's a lot coming.

And to clarify, it's not like I'm opposed to commercial along Airport Road.

It's very important.

I understand that we need lots of commercial shops to serve a growing population as well as the actual housing for the population.

At the same time, we sort of set up a comp plan thing here with a flum to add housing here, potentially, and I think that's a good idea still.

All right we have a motion and a second.

Ms. Brown, sorry, looking at the other side.

Mr. Moore?

Aye.

Ms. Firehock?

Aye.

No.

We're tied.

It is not a recommended recommendation of denial or approval at this point.

Does the commission want to entertain another motion?

Go ahead if you think we're going to have a different outcome.

Could I ask a question?

I'm not sure if this is appropriate or not, but with it being a tie at the moment, is it appropriate for the applicant to come up and address anything that we've heard?

Yeah, they can.

So, I don't see the motion, but it might be here.

Can we get the motion back up, please?

Sometimes the chairman is in a situation like this made off of the applicant's chance to defer as well.

Well, the applicant would like to come up to request deferral.

Thank you.

Okay.

Can I make a motion?

Okay.

I would like to move to recommend that we move this application forward as approved to the Board of Directors for the Zoning Map Amendment.

And with the recommendations that the applicant work with staff before reaching the Board of Directors to continue to diminish the impact on the

Well, the road will be built with the development.

Well, I think that Mr. Barnes was suggesting we have an advantage to have developer pay for constructing the road, which is why the only reason I can imagine you'd want to go ahead and do it at this point.

So it seems like

Coming in with the restriction that it would be used for emergency vehicles makes sense because it allows the road to be built with private funding, but then restricts access to address the concerns that we have about people using that as a three road to the neighborhood right now.

Right.

If the need arises in the future that you need to open that road, then you can.

You take out bollards, make an adjustment or whatever.

I would just give one point of clarification.

Usually, when we build an emergency access road with bollards and stuff, it's built to sort of a private or lesser condition, building it to a full-on state standard with pavement thicknesses and sidewalks and what have you.

It's typically not done as an emergency access home.

So it probably would, if we do do emergency access,

Perhaps we would build it to a state standard so it could be accepted with VDOT, but that's typically not what we would do.

You have plenty of rows of UVA like that.

I could be wrong.

I totally understand what you're saying.

And I'd like maybe staff's clarification on this point, because the way I understand the application, what we would be approving is only a right of way.

And so the right of way would include potentially whatever the intersection is between the new road or the new

Path, and Airport Acres, you would still have a right of way.

So whether it's grass or pavers, or no matter what, you know, see what I'm saying, like the right of way is the right of way.

And that's what the applicant is suggesting as a proffer.

So they're saying, we will give you this versus we will do this.

So I don't think that they, I don't, I could be wrong.

I don't think that the commercial developer

is going to want to make it go through unless the county asks them to because the county feels we need it.

I mean, but am I saying it correctly?

Right.

It's the right of way, but the road itself, right?

It's a right of way.

The intent wasn't for it to be a public street.

If it's not going to be a public street, just going to be an emergency access at some point or something like that.

The application shows a right of way.

With the intent of it being a public road.

Sure.

They're proffering.

It's in their proffers.

So they're proffering to build a road is the one shot to do it.

I understand there was a lot of if it's determined.

I heard language of if it's determined that it's needed.

So that's why I'm suggesting that.

Let me amend my friendly amendment so that the applicant would work with staff.

An easement for the rest of the road.

So whatever they have to build for the development day one, they build through the full standards and then the remaining piece.

However, that makes the most sense in terms of how do you terminate that road and

I want to make sure I understand what you're requesting.

So with that, the county at some point have to come back and complete the termination.

Potentially, maybe the applicant will complete the termination.

That's part of that.

If it's determined that it's needed, that it's completed at that point, whatever stretch of the road, that could be part of the agreement.

My point is just work together to come up with a solution.

I'm just trying to think of the best way to structure this.

Let me just maybe say back what I think the intent that I hear.

There's a concern about creating a connection at this time.

There's a desire to preserve that option for the future.

And of course, staff can work with the applicant to try and figure out

what that may manifest as.

I think we'll have at this point, I'm loathe to try and speak for the applicant or try and come up with a solution here to Dias for that one issue.

I think what I heard going back to your motion, increase the buffer to 50 feet.

Remove the walking path from that buffer and then

Thank you.

I tried to do that right then.

Is there a vote on the amendment first?

Sure.

So should we discuss the amendment and vote on that first?

We can.

Can I also amend it myself because I was the motion maker?

No?

You could withdraw.

Okay, I'll withdraw the first motion.

Second motion.

And I'll make a new motion.

And that motion is to recommend approval of the zoning map amendment.

ZMA 2025-00010 Airport Road Commercial with the recommendations that the applicant work with staff to increase the buffer to a minimum of 50 feet, remove the walkway on the western border, and

Okay, I think we have the clarity.

I think that the last part is to try and work for a road connection that doesn't, that allows for a long, in the long term, an interconnection to be made, but in the near term, not to have a connection made.

We can, I think we can work on that.

You know, it's basically, let me restructure it.

We would obtain a satisfactory right-of-way for a public street, but that public street would not be made through the airport acres part of the initial phase of the development.

Is that what I'm understanding you all want?

Yeah.

All right, so I'll just make sure I'm tracking.

The whole value proposition, my understanding, was of taking advantage of this time

was to have the road because you don't think VDOT would actually do that on their own.

So this is a chance to inherit a gift in a sense, right?

Maybe a gift from an accounting perspective.

So to me, it seems like you just sacrificed all of that.

There's no guarantee if you move forward in that direction with just the right of way.

To me, it doesn't make any sense to me.

Is this simple potentially as saying you do the road and it's closed off to through traffic as a safety valve until things get figured out in terms of land use and so forth, so you actually get what you need, but it's closed off to through traffic until a later date as a checkpoint?

I mean, is that something that could be done?

I mean, to start and do something 75% and expect someone to come back and finish it, I don't know.

That was my original amendment.

But I think the hang-up was emergency vehicles only.

The way I'm understanding the interaction here is that if we say that, it's not going to be built to the right standard.

We still have to make sure how we close it to you.

There's no second to my motion.

I can change it again.

No one seconded it.

I would like to move to recommend approval of ZMA 2025-00010 Airport Road Commercial with recommendations that the applicant work with staff before the next public hearing, before going to the two Board of Supervisors to increase the buffer

both north and west to 50 feet.

Remove the walking path on the western border and

I would just suggest that if you all have a if you have a direction you'd like for us to go with the road I think it's best if you all provide us clarity on that so that we can

Okay.

I'm just going to finish the sentence then.

To work with staff to determine whether the road needs to be built as a through road or not.

And the reason I say it that way is because my understanding is that we don't know until we have the study.

I'm sorry, I really feel like I'm getting in the middle of this and it's an uncomfortable place.

It's okay.

Well, but there's not a study, you know, just if you want to vote to not make the road connection, I think that would be clearer.

Maybe

by the right-of-way but not make a road connection.

It might be the clearest motion.

If that's really where the commission is going, if it's making the connection at this time is the problem, then probably get the dedication for the right-of-way and not make the road through at this time.

Your motion.

Is there a second?

I'll take a cut at making a motion as well.

I move to recommend approval of ZMA 2025-00010 Airport Road Commercial with increasing the buffer from 30 to 50 foot installation of the road as proposed, but not open to through traffic until a later date in terms of understanding what the land use will actually be.

And then the last piece was around the trail.

It was pulling it out of the woods.

I think making it a sidewalk is what you had proposed, and I agreed with that.

So I'll put that motion.

I mean, I appreciate the attempt to address some concerns.

I still kind of feel like it's the worst of both worlds.

If you're going to build a road, make a road.

If you're going to give up housing, you give up housing, but I don't want to give up housing.

So build a road or not, but this kind of middle thing is confusing me.

If we really wanted to build a road connector, I also don't personally love the idea of connecting to a divided highway.

I mean, I realize it would require investment,

like buying it right away but it's only 200 feet to Lewis and Clark Drive just a little bit north of what we're talking about so from Airport Acres Road it's a very narrow gap if you wanted to have another out that could lead to Airport Road that would be a way to do it in the future if this was a really big priority I agree that I think that would require a private landowner

I would.

I'm talking about acquiring the right-of-way, blah, blah, blah.

But what I was saying is you would build a road that's not open through traffic, right?

Doesn't seem to concern us.

The road itself, in the face of it, doesn't get us anywhere.

Doesn't provide an access that the neighborhood is needing or asks for.

It doesn't provide a way for the neighborhood to get somewhere they need to get to.

So the road is pointless.

No, they can have a road into the development, but I don't think the road going into a quite residential neighborhood through this commercial establishment that we don't even know what it is.

No one's made the, because we have no spec, we have no plan from the developer.

And I appreciate the idea that we don't want to have all these highly specific plans because then it costs too much to go through this process.

OK, I'll start with Miss King.

Aye.

Mr. Clayborne.

Aye.

And Miss Brown.

That's correct.

Can I make one comment, Chair, just that I do want to recognize that I think that Mr. Barnes did say that there was a conversation with staff about the need for an exit from this community potentially in the future that did not dump onto 29.

And I'm not saying that's compelling, but I heard two commissioners say there was absolutely no need for it.

And I did hear a need.

a potential future need stated.

So I just wanted to, I just disagree with that.

We're moving on.

I appreciate everyone coming out.

The Rio 29 CAC met and had a really nice conversation about the implementation of the Conference of Plan.

Mike was there.

And I think it's probably similar to the one that happened a month before, you know, south of the town.

But

actually the September 2nd meeting is what I was going to talk to you about okay which was the I made that mistake it's my apologies but the August I mean the September 2nd board meeting the board reviewed several different items that may be of interest to you all

There was a fee discussion for the micro-cap program, basically $2 for most riders and then $1 for a series of riders who were either elderly or young or 60% AMI.

The idea of trying to charge something for the service was something that was discussed and approved by the board.

The board also reviewed the Rural Rustic Unpaved Improvement Program.

It's been quite a complicated process to try and deal with the ins and outs of that program.

It basically pays for either paving rural roads that are acceptable for paving or making some improvements to those systems to try and make them safer.

The board, another

Abert, Karina Plun and Kevin McDermott worked diligently to try and get that thing done and I think the board was quite happy with the work that they had done on that.

The item that evening that the board reviewed was Wendy Knoll.

You will recall that that came before you all on May 22nd or 26th of this year that you all approved our

passed Resolution 5 to 1 on that one for denial of that project.

That was the project was in next to Corey Farms, kind of that strange sort of C-shaped parcel.

And staff communicated Ural's concern with that.

Part of it was the lack of separation from that project with the

Liberty Hall neighborhood.

The applicant did come back to expand the setback on that from 20 to 25 feet.

I think you would call the Liberty Hall subdivision actually had a waiver reducing theirs on their side down to five feet.

So that sort of got us back to sort of the status quo of separation between uses.

They also, another point that you all had passed in your resolution was stormwater concerns.

And the board did talk about those a little bit.

The applicant did show on their plan, the illustrative plan, a conceptual stormwater system that would capture the water.

You know, it's one of those things that we'd be working with them on the site plan stage.

And so I think the board took that advice.

There was the idea of the number of units.

As you recall, there were 18 total units on that property.

One of those units was an existing house that was there retaining the other 17 units would be new.

And the applicant came back with a commitment to making no more than 11 houses in the northern half or 11 houses in the southern half, which is a slight reduction from the number that you all had seen on their illustrative plan that evening.

And then your final comment that we conveyed to them was a lack of commitment to communicate with the community.

The board listened to all those things and talked at length about housing and the fact that the applicant was providing affordable housing that meets the policy on that application.

And the board voted five to one in favor of the project, so it did go through.

and that was September 2nd.

That's all I have, thank you.

I would, under new business, if you don't mind, Mr.

Chair, I just sent you all an email this morning.

We're excited.

We're bringing you the form-based code at the next meeting.

And then I misspoke the other day, Mr. Carrazano, when we were talking about, we're gonna actually be bringing you our plan for the transportation

Multimodal Plan, the following meeting.

It'll be the first meeting in October.

So two items coming your way.

But what I tried to do with this email that I sent this morning is make sure that you had a copy of the form-based code.

It's kind of lengthy.

I tried to give you guys a few more weeks to look at it.

Thank you.

Is the transportation plan coming on the October 13th meeting?

Yes, sir.

All right.

So that was new business, I believe, old business.