Planning Commission Meeting   11/10/2020

What a shame.

What a shame.

I'm muted.

Oh, I keep thinking of the who, you know?

I'm not the deaf, blind, and dumb kid, but I do play a mean pinball.

OK.

This meeting is being held pursuant to and in compliance with coordinates number 20-A.

Thank you, everyone.

Mr. Bailey.

Present.

Mr. Keller.

Present.

Ms.

Mr. Bivins.

Here.

Mr. Randolph.

Present.

Mr. Carrazana.

Here.

Mr. Clayborne.

Here.

And Ms.

Moore.

Ms.

Thank you very much.

Moving on to our consent agenda on our last sheet.

I think there's only one item there.

Anyone wish to pull that one up?

Is there a motion to accept the consent agenda?

Rick?

Are you moving to accept the consent agenda?

Moved, is there a second?

Tim, is there any discussion on the consent agenda?

All those in, oops, I will wait.

I was running another meeting.

I will be quiet.

Mr. Clayborne?

Aye.

Mr. Randolph?

Aye.

Ms.

Firehock?

Aye.

Mr. Keller?

Aye.

Mr. Bailey?

Thank you very much.

Tonight we're going to move on to our first item.

That is AFD-20201 Batesville District Review.

I see Mr. Clark is there.

Ready?

Good evening.

Thank you.

I will go ahead and put my presentation up here in just a moment.

So we have two district reviews tonight on the agenda.

I'll go ahead and do the presentation for both of them together and then at the end there'll be a separate motion for each.

If you have any questions please let me know but I'll just go ahead and get started.

So we were talking about the Batesville district and the High Mowing district which are right next to each other in the Batesville area in the southwest part of the county.

So just to review quickly, what are the purposes of these districts?

This is a lot of language from the county code that talks about all the different purposes they have.

But the last section at the bottom talks about all the different things they do.

They're there to help protect agriculture, forestry, biodiversity, and natural resources in our rural areas.

This is a state enabled program that many localities have.

How do they work?

These are voluntary conservation districts that are formed by the landowners that are within them.

The districts run in cycles usually are 10 years at a time before they're reviewed.

The review periods are the one time in which people who are members of these districts can withdraw by right.

And the districts affect land conservation mainly by limiting what's termed as development to a more intensive use.

For most people that means that they prohibit some forms of subdivision, not every kind.

Family divisions are still permitted, divisions over 21 acres are still permitted, otherwise subdivision is not permitted.

They also set a higher review standard for land use decisions that are on items in or adjacent to the districts and they also limit or prohibit state takings for major road improvements because this land is meant to be dedicated to agriculture and resource conservation.

Now, as some of you will remember, we have what I'm still calling a new policy, only semi new policy for the district reviews as they come through.

And in short, this policy says that when we review a district, if there are parcels in the district that are enrolled in the open space use valuation, in other words, the open space tax category, but that have no development rights,

Those parcels may be removed at the end of a five year review period.

And then we have to notify them of what their options are to either move back into regular taxation or otherwise adapt to the changes coming.

Please notice that is a tax related policy.

And for those who haven't been around for this issue in the past, the

The issue we had for many years was that we had parcels joining the ag four districts that had no real development potential that were giving up the right to subdivide technically but they couldn't be subdivided anyway and they're using that membership in the district to qualify for a lower tax rate that's meant to be for land conservation.

I thought it would be worthwhile to take a second and explain how these two programs are separate and how they're connected.

There's a very common perception in the community that agricultural and forest districts are a taxation program or that you join an ag four district in order to lower your taxes.

Ag4 districts are voluntary conservation programs.

They restrict land use.

Use-value taxation is a completely separate program from a separate part of the county code that sets lower tax rates for rural land uses that are supportive of our comp plan goals and that help prevent the process of taxing farmers and other rural land users

at a rate so high that they get basically taxed off the land.

It reduces the pressure to develop in the rural areas.

In almost every way these are two entirely separate matters, but there is one thing that connects them and that is in the state code one of the qualifying factors for one of the categories of use value taxation is whether or not you are in an agricultural and forest district.

So this doesn't help you with your agriculture, forestry, or horticulture tax categories, but it can, if you meet that criteria and some others, allow you to join in the open space category.

And that's where our tax loophole was.

Again, it's not an issue with the districts themselves.

It was a tax issue where people would join the Ag4 district

right on the tax form, hey, I'm in an ag-for district.

I qualify for the open space tax rate.

Well, that was true.

But the problem being, if they weren't giving up any development potential, we were giving a tax benefit for conservation that wasn't happening.

So that's why we're going through this process of checking the development potential of the open space tax parcels in a program that is not meant to be a tax program.

I'll be happy to go back over any of that as necessary.

But I just added a couple of maps here

to clarify this difference.

Here's the area of our two districts for tonight.

The reddish brown is the Batesville district, the green is the High Mowing district.

You'll see that the purple speckles that show land that's in use value taxation is both in and outside the district, but not everything in the districts is taxed that way.

So the perception that everything that's in an Ag 4 district is there purely for use value taxation is not quite accurate.

Also, there's a lot of land outside the districts that qualify in other ways.

You know, all you can really see from this map is are they in use value taxation or not.

And the reason that I've put the conservation easements on here is being in a conservation easement is a route to a different reduced tax rate.

So you can also see that some of that overlaps with the districts and much of it does not.

Within our two districts that we're talking about tonight, again, there's that perception that everybody who's in the Ag 4 district is there to get that open space tax rate.

And it's a lot more complicated than that.

On the left side, you have the Batesville district.

On the lower right, you have the High Mowing district.

And you can see there are a whole bunch of different tax categories that people in these districts are in.

Some of them are taxed at the easement rate.

Some of them are taxed at agriculture or forestry rates because of the activities they're carrying out.

Some of them aren't even in the use value taxation program.

They're paying full rate residential taxes in those purple or pink parcels.

So there's a lot of variety in how taxation works within these districts.

And again, they're not really meant to be a tax program.

They're a land conservation program.

So just wanted to clarify that difference.

So go back to the simpler maps.

These are our two districts around the Batesville area.

First, we'll talk about the Batesville review.

This district was created in 1990.

has just over 1,100 acres and is up for its 10-year review.

There's a couple of quick corrections that need to be done.

This is very common when we get through 10 years of not modifying the code that defines what's in a district.

When we go to the board with a revised ordinance that says who's in this district, we'll have to add parcel AD 5381 which was legally created by subdivision within the district during its term.

and we'll have to remove from the county code parcel 70-40 which is no longer in the district already.

We just need the code to reflect that.

The code allows the owner's heirs to a property in the district to remove it as long as they ask within two years which they did.

So the district itself

The district has a lot of important resources in it.

950 of its 1,100 acres have soils listed as important for agriculture.

It's a mix of open land and forest.

There are five parcels under conservation easement.

Now, I list here 953 acres in use value taxation.

And the reason we always list that, again, is not anything about the taxation itself, but an indication of the fact that these parcels of land are in some sort of rurally appropriate land use.

So that's the Batesville district.

They have one requested withdrawal.

And again, it's a buy-write matter.

Anyone who's in these districts, if they want to withdraw during the 10-year review, they just write us a letter and say, I want to withdraw.

And it's their choice to do so.

It's a lot more complicated during the run of the district.

And if you all have questions about that, I can answer them, but it's not really relevant right now.

The one withdrawal we have this time is for parcel 8517B, which was recently purchased by the Central Virginia Electric Cooperative.

They are planning to do, especially permit application for a solar facility there.

that wouldn't work legally within the district so they are asking to remove it.

I will say to their credit they didn't particularly like the idea of removing it because they didn't feel that given that the facility if it's even approved given that they eventually can be

pulled out, removed, and the land returned to agriculture.

They didn't particularly want to come out, but there's a legal reason why only certain uses can really be found to be compliant within ag four districts.

So they are removing that so that they can proceed with their special use permit.

Okay, also in the Batesville district, the new policy that I mentioned about alerting landowners who are in the open space tax category and have no development rights

that they may be removed at the end of the next review.

That applies to four parcels.

There are nine parcels in the district overall that are in the open space tax category.

Only four of those have no small lot development rights.

So that's the orange, red, pink, and blue parcels there at the top of the map.

So those four, assuming the board continues this district, they will most likely continue it for a five-year period rather than 10, and then we would notify those landowners of what they need to do to address their tax situation by the end of that time.

So at the meeting on September 23rd, the Agricultural and Forestry District Advisory Committee

which is the body that advises us and the board on matters in the districts and applications to the districts.

They recommended renewal of this district for five years.

Again with the request of withdrawal and taking care of those four parcels that need to be notified.

So on to the high mowing district.

This one's a little simpler.

This district was created in 1991.

It's 445 acres.

403 of which are listed as particularly important for agriculture with three dwellings, 236 acres under conservation easements.

So our tax at that rate and the remaining 209 acres are in these value taxation of one category or another.

So a small district but one that protects a lot of important resources.

There are no parcels in this district that are in the open space category and that have no development rights.

There's only one parcel that's in that category at all.

That's 8469A.

It has five development rights, so there's no issue there.

So again, the committee recommended renewal of this district, this time for a 10-year period.

Questions for Scott.

Rick.

Unmute.

There you go.

Would you just clarify that

Central Virginia Electric Co-op has of course the right to take this piece of property out of the Ag Forestry District.

At the end of let's say 30 years, which is the customary life expectancy of solar farms like this, if they remove all of the fixtures in the ground

and therefore re-establish the potential of that land to be used solely for 100% for agricultural purposes.

That's right.

I don't know if I'll still be here by then.

We're forming on it.

and we would expect that requirement for complete removal would be in place.

The one solar facility that the county has approved so far had a very strong and clear decommissioning plan for complete removal of the facilities once it went out of use and if the board was to recommend in order to approve this application which we haven't received yet

I would expect that we would be recommending the same kind of decommissioning plan here.

Okay, thank you very much for that.

I just, I thought that was the case.

Other questions for Scott?

Before we open up for public discussion, is there a reason why they couldn't be just one district, why they have to be two districts?

Yeah, the districts are defined and set up by the landowners who group together to apply for them.

They're not imposed by us.

And you'll notice these two were formed a year or so apart.

It's just generally there are groups of people who know each other.

Sometimes, you know, if you've got the A group, but the districts are not

Thank you.

If I could make just a couple of suggestions.

Having the map as you did there and even with the one with the overlay with the various easements was extremely helpful.

So you've actually done, what you did there was really quite helpful.

Does anyone else have anything to ask before we go to an open point?

I'm asking whether or not does, Madam Albemarle County, is there someone there online who would like to speak to us before I even go there?

Yes, I have.

Yes, we do.

One second.

I'm going to suggest that.

I have to admit you want to provide us.

Oh, there is one thing.

The Assessor's Office will send them a letter after the board acts on the district to inform them of what their taxation options are.

We can't actually tell people they definitely will be removed because we can't bind the future board five years from now.

The best we can do is, we've already done this a few times and we've got a form letter pretty well set that informs them that this is likely to happen or possible to happen and that they can pursue one of a few other options either to go back into full rate taxation now so they don't experience rollback at the end of the five years or they find a different way to qualify through actually doing agriculture or doing forestry.

on the land, just like anybody else could.

Thank you.

So apparently we have someone in the public who would like to speak.

OK, can you hear me?

You can hear me.

OK, great.

I guess I'm the only speaker, which is kind of interesting to me.

But my name is Rory Carpenter.

I live at 1081 Kingsway Road, Afton, Virginia.

You're fine.

You're coming over just fine, sir.

Great.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

I really appreciate the opportunity to speak in favor of the AF District Advisory Committee's decision to recommend renewal for the Batesville District.

And I will be brief and to the point.

My land abuts this district.

We built our house in 1991, one year after the district was created.

We had wanted to join the district, but our property did not meet the acreage requirement.

But we have certainly benefited from having land that is adjacent to the district.

Therefore, it might seem self serving for me to be speaking in favor of the renewal, but I truly believe that benefits all county citizens to have rural areas such as this, to preserve the air, water and ground quality of our county.

Not to mention the beauty of this part of the county,

which was evident today to anyone who ventured out here to the western part of Albemarle today.

I'd like to applaud the landowners who have put their properties into this district and wholeheartedly support the recommendation.

And that's it.

Thank you for your comments.

Is there anyone else?

There's no one else, Mr. Chairman.

Our clerk is having some technical difficulties with her speaker system.

I understand.

I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back in.

Commissioners, do you have any other questions for Mr. Clark?

Ms.

Keller.

As many of you know, I

served on that Ag and Forestry Advisory Committee.

And I guess I would just like to point out that this, we've talked about this with Scott before, but this might be something that would be an interesting joint meeting in the future.

One of the members is the county assessor.

And so we actually had the benefit of Scott and the county assessor sort of going back and forth about the piece, that one graphic that was shown by

by Scott about the value, the ag value versus the tax, you know, without that.

I'm moving my lips and nothing's coming out.

Scott, you have two things before us.

I'm prepared to make a motion.

Mr. Chairman, before I do though I just want to make a statement that while it is not the Planning Commission's job to make policy, that's the job of the Board of Supervisor, I still believe that parcels should be able to remain in the district even if they have no development rights because the district supports IR purpose simply than

preventing existing development rights from being realized.

So I've made that soapbox speech before at much greater length, so I'll spare you that this evening, and move to the motion.

Is there a second?

Mr. Bailey?

Aye.

Mr. Keller?

Aye.

Ms.

Firehock?

Aye.

Mr. Randolph?

Aye.

Mr. Bivins?

Aye.

And Mr. Clayborne?

Thank you very much.

Can we move to the next one?

So this is the high mowing district.

Is there a low mowing district somewhere out there?

I'm prepared to make a motion since it's in my district, but I will say that its name choice is unfortunate.

Seconded by Mr. Keller.

Any additional discussion?

Mr. Clayborne.

Aye.

Mr. Randolph.

Aye.

Ms.

Mr. Keller.

Aye.

Mr. Bailey.

Thank you.

It looks like that passed again.

Thank you very much.

Have a good evening.

Moving on to ZTA 202-3, outdoor activities slash outdoor storage and recycling uses in, nope, nope, nope, no problem.

That's the wrong one.

No, that's all right.

Recycling uses in industrial zoning districts.

You know, today I will admit, I've got confused.

I made a full,

And I will be sharing my presentation here.

Hopefully you can see it.

Thank you.

I'm here this evening for the public hearing for this item that you saw in October.

So we will go over a little bit of the background that we covered in October, but the changes before you are consistent with what was presented and you've provided feedback on at the work session.

Just a little background, the timeline that led us to this.

We mentioned that the industrial districts were comprehensively looked at in 2013.

and since then we have had some special exceptions come forward in 2019.

We've also adopted our climate action plan which led to this zoning text amendment being added to the community development work program in March and a resolution of intent was adopted and this was initiated by the board in June officially.

and then I mentioned we had the work session in October that led us to this point with the public hearing this evening.

So some of the lenses we analyzed this ZTA with or stakeholders or policy that we looked at included as I mentioned the climate action plan which has a recommendation to increase the amount of materials that are recycled and diverted from landfills

and we also consulted with economic development staff, resource protection goals in the comprehensive plan were reviewed and then we also considered neighbor impacts and the characteristics of where these districts are located and what's adjacent to them in terms of what might be appropriate.

I wanted to mention this came up in our work session that we have a number of different sections in the ordinance that work together and provide regulations for industrial uses, starting with what uses are permitted where in the industrial districts generally, and that's where we have some height regulations and the minimum buffer requirements for any industrial use.

We have something called performance standards in our ordinance that get at those other impacts such as vibration, heat, glare.

That's where we find the requirements for any industrial use to submit a certified engineer's report where we really get a detailed description of their processes, their materials, any hazards, any mitigation related to mosquito control.

We would consult with any outside agencies or the fire marshal's office during that process and that's when we would find out you know what materials are stored and where.

We mentioned last time there this isn't affecting the lighting regulations or noise regulations that would apply to these uses.

It's really very focused on section five regulations which are above and beyond all of these other things for certain uses where we thought they needed that additional regulation.

So once again, just a reminder of how much heavy industrial land is out there and where.

Pretty limited 105 acres and most of the industrial land is on an entrance corridor and a percentage of it is also either located in the rural area or adjacent to rural area or residential uses.

and stepping back to the zoning regulations that are applicable when we're talking about recycling uses.

We wanted to clarify again that recycling collection and storage, if you will, is by right in any of these districts, but would also be subject to those performance standards.

Recycling processing is by right in heavy industrial, but by special use permit in the light industrial districts.

and the definitions that you've seen before.

And you really framed well during your discussion at the work session.

Collection is like we see down here at McIntire.

People are putting things in containers to be transported to a recycling processing facility.

We may find as we move forward that we have both located in the same place.

And we talked last time that things in containers are not considered outdoor storage.

So the two sets of regulations, this zoning text amendment is very specific to section 5151, outdoor activities in industrial districts and then 5152, which is the outdoor storage.

So now,

I will go over those changes which are very minimal for outdoor activities.

That includes the recommendation in the draft ordinance that we provide a budding owner notice prior to acting on a special exception.

Special exceptions, again, are only granted by the Board of Supervisors.

If we recommend approval, they go on a consent agenda in terms of the process at the board, but we have the option to schedule them as an action item and have discussion about them if we feel that's necessary based on the staff analysis and the individual requests and any abutting property owner concerns that might be raised.

And for section 5152, we have some more changes to that section.

We wanted to add flexibility in the types of screening that would be provided to outdoor storage areas.

And then also allowing the outdoor storage of inert materials at recycling facilities.

for collection centers provided that there is that increased setback and buffer that is in keeping with some supplemental regulations we have for some other types of uses that are allowed in the industrial districts.

And again, adding that requirement that any special exception that is reviewed or acted on that abutting owners receive notice.

So we have recommended approval of the attached ordinance.

Thank you very much.

Are there questions for Ms.

Ragsdale?

Yes, Corey.

Yes, could you just explain real quickly what was the difference in shall and must?

Like shall was stricken and must was added?

Have you all had Andy Herrick's tutorial on shall and must?

I can't remember which meeting.

It comes up in a lot of meetings, but based on legal advice, the standard is now must, not shall, so you'll see must.

You must use must.

It's two minutes but it's repeated frequently and what I always tell our staff these days is thou shalt not use shall.

Wow.

Corey, will you finish?

Okay, Karen.

Yeah, mine's easy.

I believe so, yes.

Okay, it was in our staff report too and I think you meant to strike screened as well so that it just ends with the word agent period and then the rest of screened and the rest of that is stricken.

Got it.

As shown.

Yeah, okay, that's it.

I must strike that.

Actually if I could raise a point as well and I'm sorry I'm not interrupting anybody else but it does seem to me as though there's differences between the proposed ordinance in the body of the report and then what's been attached as exhibit B and I believe what's in the body of the report on page three is the more chartered version

Must does here.

Other, thank you, Andy, for this.

Well, since we're on the shell kick, it seems like both in the slides and in the body

on 5.1.52C still list shell.

Is that a concern?

Or no outdoor storage shell be located within 50 feet?

Or is that a proper use of shell?

That's a good question.

I had to strike a balance between going in and fixing all the shells and just sort of cleaning up the shells.

We were going to be changing the ordinance anyway.

And in an act of restraint,

Any other questions from commissioners?

So this isn't one of the specifics, but it's something that was referenced about the adjoining or close by property owners.

Recently I've become aware of issues with a proposed dump in Cumberland County.

I know this isn't a dump, but still.

The issue is one of environmental justice and minority populations and what voice they're given

and so I wonder if this is most likely more question for Charles and maybe it's something that we need to think about for overall wording that's beyond this specific set, but how can we let people who have not necessarily been given voice in the past that they will have a voice

I can respond and then maybe Charles or Bart can jump in.

I think that you know given I think we said before that industrial uses are our you know heaviest potentially intensive uses that we wanted to add that so that there would be a budding owner notice so that would be the properties complete you know on all sides and across the street that touch the subject property that maybe may have a special exception under review and it's not

Each of these special exception analysis that may look simple or the reports may look simple when they end up on the board consent agenda, but we really are thinking through the neighbor impacts and the resource, any resources that might be impacted nearby.

So just because someone applies, there's no guarantees that we would support all special exceptions.

I mean, that's why we're still keeping that on a case by case basis for some of these regulations like setback.

for the setbacks, but I think we're probably trying to move in a direction that allows more participation.

I think we have some discretion in terms of what we think we need to review a special exception, and if we thought that we needed to notify a broader

a broader range of people.

That might be something I think we can do.

Yeah, I think let me jump in Bart Sobota.

So A, B, and C, I think Commissioner Keller is trying to point out govern the buy right use.

So unless you're asking for the special exception to modify those

I believe the way Mr. Keller put it, if those are met, then it's approved.

So I guess technically that's correct.

How we get farther than that, or if we decide to make this use, say, by special permit as opposed to by right, that's a different discussion.

But point taken, Mr. Keller, when we talk about how do we equalize the opportunities for folks to speak.

Am I getting that correct?

Right, OK.

So then I would suggest if you bring something to the board that you put a note in there, a paragraph on what your outreach has been and how you've engaged with the community, since there's more scrutiny about how our policies, how our actions, working

How are they engaged with the communities that sit around them?

Well, Tim, are you still on this matter?

Are you still on the subject?

Okay, Karen, are you on the subject?

Okay, Tim.

I'd like to hear from Charles, and maybe Charles, where you're keeping the list of things to do.

And I know that we're going a year out on that list.

But it seems to me that environmental justice is something that should be on a checklist that staff is looking at just the way they are looking at affordable housing and economic development and land use compliance and those sorts of things.

So I can speak to a few of those, a few comments on it.

As far as the public participation component, in many of these instances that require community meetings or public notices to be sent as the director, it's also written in that I can require additional community meetings as needed to ensure that the intent of that was met.

On the larger scale, we actually are working with the Office of Equity and Inclusion, Masiri Russell.

She is piloting a program to ensure that projects are equitable.

The Riley Road corridor is one that we're going to start to look through that at.

It is basically a type of checklist where you analyze projects and different components.

As far as applying that, that still is in a pilot program stage right now.

We haven't figured out how to fully apply that to development applications, but I think there's obviously potential there to continue growing that.

And then also, as you all know, we have our work plan.

One of the first major things in our work plan is a comprehensive plan update.

We also have a major zoning ordinance update.

So I believe we have quite a few opportunities to address some of the bigger picture items that can then feed into our ordinances and how we conduct our business here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Karen?

Never mind.

So, anyone else?

I have a question for you.

So can you help just explain why between 51 and 52 on B we go from

The activity can only be 100 feet from, excuse me, cannot be less than 100 feet from residential agricultural district.

But on C, storage can be within 50 feet.

So D only applies to those inert materials at a recycling center and C would apply to any other type of outdoor storage that's allowed for other types of industrial uses.

You know, maybe landscaping materials like it snows or

No, that's a fair example, thank you.

And then on the other piece of this, are we giving owners of the properties the opportunity or the option to decide what the buffer will be?

We are allowing a combination.

It could be vegetation, it could be a fence, it could be a combination.

And this is wording that comes from, we're making this consistent with our site plan section of the ordinance that talks about screening.

So it is to the satisfaction of the agent, which is typically

I guess these days Charles and our review staff in terms of what we think is providing that screening.

We've seen that, you know, depending on the property and the characteristics that, but it is up to the applicant to propose it and then we decide if it's sufficient or not.

Because I was, I'm going, you know, everyone will know that my touchstone is Yancey Mill.

You know, there were trees.

Now there's a lovely fence there.

So I give whoever help ensure that a fence got in front of the property.

And so to make sure that because trees, I forget which one of my colleagues said that trees provide some buffer, but it doesn't provide the kind of sound buffer or the kind of loose buffer that you might get if there's a wooden fence there.

So I don't want to be

I knew you were.

I know you were.

Rebecca, can you, I'm just stuck on the shall and must.

I found that intriguing.

On section B under 5.1.52, the parts, materials, and equipment stored in the storage area shall not be stacked higher than provided screening.

Yeah, that might be one we want to change to must.

If I might suggest, that might actually, would probably better be a May.

May is probably more appropriate in that context.

Thank you.

Are there others?

Mr. Rapp, do we have anybody?

Mr. Carrazana, do you have anything to say about this?

OK.

I don't.

I hadn't heard your voice.

We'd heard everybody else's name, but we hadn't heard you.

So I wanted to get you in there.

Is anyone there?

Oh, that's kind of you.

Beth, we have no one out there.

So why don't we move on and see what else?

How would you like to amend that?

There's the motion.

Who wants to make it?

Y'all don't leap up here all at once.

I think I saw Daniel's hand move.

Daniel moved it.

Is there a second?

Second.

There you go.

Thank you.

Any further discussion on this?

Sir?

Mr. Clayborne?

Aye.

Mr. Randolph?

Aye.

Ms.

Firehock?

Yes.

Mr. Keller.

Aye.

Mr. Bailey.

Aye.

Thank you, Kai.

Yes, nice to see you all too.

And we're going to move on.

Commissioners, are there any reports?

Oh, there we go.

I'll be really brief.

The Pan Top CAC met on October 27th and the main thing of this was a presentation by VDOT on that the Virgin Diamond Interchange, Exit 124.

And I just wanted to congratulate Mr. Rapp and you, Mr. Chairman, for setting up

That presentation by Kevin McDermott, the timing was perfect.

And so I think the more and more presentations we can have strategically sprinkled throughout our schedule, the better we're equipped to be more effective with our CACs.

I just want to say thanks and see how that timing just worked perfectly together.

Obviously, folks, if you're looking, if you're driving down 29 going towards Karen's district,

You will see that VDOT has created a whole completely different set of roads down there, of which at some point we'll figure it all out.

But they're stopping you.

So if you don't go that way, I'm not suggesting you do, but if you go down the 250 bypass going towards Dr. Ho's, you'll see that there's new traffic coming up there, which is interesting.

Anybody else?

No one else?

All right at the October 21st board of supervisors meeting there the board approved the airport animal clinic special use permit and special exception whatever in Forest Lakes came before the commission maybe a month or two ago.

One other item on November 4th

The board also held a work session on the Rio 29 form-based code, and that was just to focus on the public spaces and future maintenance and ownership of those.

However, the full draft will be presented here to this commission next Wednesday at our work session.

So looking forward to that.

Next Tuesday.

Next Tuesday, sorry.

Looking forward to that.

There's a lot of great work that's been put into that.

Anything else?

Okay, old business, old business.

And you know, there's some old business because we all got a note from Charles on this.

Are there any nominations for the CIP Advisory Committee?

Is anyone feeling calm?

Excuse me.

Are you playing your hands there, guys?

What's going on here?

Is there anybody else who would like to step into this conversation?

I'm not seeing you all jump around here.

This is good gracious.

No, not yet, please.

I don't know.

All right, Mr. Clayborne.

Aye.

Mr. Randolph.

Aye.

Mr. Keller.

Aye.

Mr. Bailey.

Aye.

Mr. Bivins.

Aye.

Ms.

Firehock.

OK, good.

Thank you.

Thank you, Karen.

Thank you, Tim.

Thank you, Corey.

Let's see.

Do we have any items for follow-up?

Do we have any items for follow-up?

That's it.

That's it.

OK.

Guess what, folks?

I won't say that.

I won't say anything.

So our next meeting is next Tuesday at 8 o'clock.

No, it's not.

It's next meeting at 6 o'clock.

6 o'clock.

It depends on what time zone you're in.

It could be 8 o'clock.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Deb.

Remember everybody, so you know this is my drill.

Wear your mask.

Thank you for voting.

However you voted, thank you for voting.

Wear your mask because the numbers are looking scary again.

And I can't afford to not have any of you.

Oh, I like that mask.

That's a good one.

Thank you.

I can't afford to have any Tuesday night that we're scheduled for a meeting to not be able to see your wonderful faces.

So take care of yourself, and see you next Tuesday.

OK?

Bye.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, good evening.