[0:53] Perfect.

[8:02] Y'all ready? Are you ready? You ready?

[8:08] Good evening everyone. Welcome to our 5:00 pm work session. I'd

[8:13] like to call the meeting to order. Um for the record, Mr. Tyson has called and

[8:19] has some transportation issues and will be a little bit late, but three members

[8:24] are a corn so we can go ahead and start our work session. Um we first need to

[8:29] discuss an alternate date for our October meeting due to the holiday.

[8:35] Does staff have a recommendation for us? >> So, first off, I apologize, of course,

[8:40] and I would like to give a brief update for folks in the room. So, normally the

[8:44] work session that we're in right now will be taking place in room 229, the

[8:48] conference room up there. Got a little cramped in there last time, which is a

[8:52] good thing. People are interested in coming out and hearing more about what's

[8:54] going on in the county. So, to accommodate more folks, we decided to

[8:57] move it into the auditorium today. Um, part of what is on the agenda for today

[9:04] is to consider a alternate date for the October meeting. So that conflicts with

[9:08] a holiday. Columbus Day happens the same day as our usual second Monday of the

[9:12] month. I think in times past we have moved that to the second Tuesday of the

[9:16] month. Um, so it just require you all to make that decision as to whether you

[9:20] wanted to have it. Um, if you want to discuss a different date, we just need

[9:24] to be cognizant of advertising times between planning commission and board to

[9:28] make sure we meet those deadlines. But generally speaking, we do move that to

[9:31] the following uh business day, that Tuesday, which I don't have it right in

[9:35] front of my >> 13th.

[9:36] » The 13th. >> Um,

[9:41] does anybody have a conflict with October 13th?

[9:45] » No, that'll be fine. the October one from the 12th to the 13th.

[10:01] » Uh, would you say the 13th or the 12th? >> 13th.

[10:04] » It would be on the 12th, but we're going to

[10:06] » Okay. >> potentially move it to the

[10:07] » 13th would be fine. >> Yeah, we're good.

[10:10] » Okay, we'll move that to the 13th, please. um unless conversation changes

[10:16] as we go forward would be 5 pm. >> Yes, ma'am.

[10:20] » Yeah. All righty.

[10:26] All right. Item number two, discussion of solar text amendments and

[10:30] comprehensive plan amendments. Mr. McCoy.

[10:33] » All [clears throat] righty. So, um, as you may remember, um, a couple months

[10:37] ago, we had a few items come up before you, some items to be considered for a

[10:43] special exception permit, um, to develop two solar facilities in Botto County.

[10:49] Um, there was some conversation about those facilities and how we take solar

[10:53] facilities in general in the county for long-range planning. Um, and I believe

[10:57] that the board had authorized the planning commission to review the solar

[11:00] ordinance uh and the comprehensive plan to help guide what those facilities look

[11:05] like in Bodatak County. The uh time frame for that was pretty

[11:10] » Could you repeat what you just said? >> Yes, sir. U I believe at that time the

[11:13] the board had authorized the planning commission to go ahead and review the

[11:17] solar ordinance um within 100 days of the time frame that was given. And

[11:22] that's the important piece of why we're discussing it here tonight is that a 100

[11:26] days from that date uh May 26 would be September 3rd if I'm not mistaken which

[11:32] would be before your September planning commission meeting. So what we're

[11:36] looking at today is to meet those statutory deadline of 100 days. I wanted

[11:41] you all to be able to review the solar ordinance, review the work that was done

[11:44] by the Berkeley Group, a consultant retained by the county to review and

[11:48] make some suggestions on the solar ordinance. And then if it is your wish

[11:52] to go ahead and request some more time from the board to consider those items,

[11:56] I would consider this as kind of an advanced or lengthened work session

[12:00] because at that May meeting the board had authorized a longer time frame for

[12:05] the comp plan. So they authorized sometime in November as far as the

[12:10] deadline for that. And personally from a planning perspective, I think you should

[12:13] have both the comp plan and the solar text ordinance in front of you because

[12:17] they really serve each other very well to help guide your decisions. And

[12:21] without one, it'd be difficult to make those changes to the solar ordinance

[12:24] today in the hopes that the comprehensive plan would kind of

[12:27] interlock and support those decisions. So, wanted to put this in front of you

[12:31] all. Um, take a review of the solar ordinance itself. We'll have a

[12:35] presentation of some highlights of that. Um, and then we want to get your

[12:38] feedback and comments. That way we can get that to the Berkeley group, get

[12:42] those included in those changes, and then hopefully if the board is

[12:46] permissive of it, consider these at a future date. Does that seem like a

[12:51] appropriate path forward? >> Well, is the expectation that we would

[12:56] be voting on this today? >> Yes, sir. So, it is required that within

[13:01] a 100 days a recommendation is made to the board of supervisors as to approval

[13:05] or denial. That's the only reason why we're here tonight. Um, it's rare that

[13:10] we as planners make recommendations to you all as the planning commission. We

[13:13] like for you all to make your own decisions, but we feel it would be in

[13:16] the best interest of you all in the board to go ahead and and vote to deny

[13:20] these text amendments and request additional time to consider them. Not to

[13:25] say that they are bad or good the way they're written, but you have not had a

[13:28] chance to review them. Frankly, staff has not had a robust chance to review

[13:32] them either. So, in the interest of making the best decisions possible, I

[13:36] think it's wise to go ahead and and make that decision tonight. But I wanted a

[13:40] chance to get your feedback here. That way, we can still work with the

[13:43] consultants to get that feedback to them to incorporate in a draft for your

[13:46] future >> review. Are you asking for feedback like

[13:49] in a work session feedback or are you asking us to vote and that's your

[13:53] feedback? We're in a work session right now.

[13:56] » So, we'll have the conversation in the work session

[13:59] » and then when we go forward to the public hearing at 6 PM, we will make a

[14:02] decision on whether we're going to approve, deny.

[14:06] We'll have the vote in the 6 p.m. session.

[14:08] » Gotcha. >> No, I I I excuse me. I am totally

[14:13] totally 100% stunned. Stunned.

[14:19] Confused. Stunned. Whatever. Are you all okay with this? the way this is

[14:24] happening right now. Am I the only one? >> I wouldn't want to vote for this without

[14:29] more discussion. So, what he's saying is that if we vote to deny this as it's

[14:34] written, that gives us more time, but we do have to give a vote of a yes or a no

[14:39] based on the statutory requirement. >> Well, could could you put up

[14:45] Mr. Titen? Can I just please ask for a quick timeout? Did did you say that

[14:50] there is a staff presentation to summarize what was in our packet?

[14:53] » Yes, ma'am. >> Can we go forward with the presentation

[14:56] first? >> I have a question

[14:57] » and then everybody's going to have all the chance to ask all their questions.

[15:00] Okay. So, let's ple let's let's have staff please present your your

[15:05] information and then I know Mr. Hartman, Mr. Lucas, I all have questions. It

[15:09] looks like you have a big packet. So, let's hear the staff summary first and

[15:13] then and then we'll ask our questions. Stop here. I got here a little late.

[15:20] » So, are we are we talk are we going to be dealing with the seller issue now?

[15:26] » Yes. >> Yes. Right now.

[15:27] » Yes. >> Yes.

[15:28] » That's what I want to >> in the work session.

[15:30] » Yes. >> Yes, sir.

[15:31] » But it's also in the six o'clock session as well.

[15:35] » Public hearing at six o'clock. >> Yes.

[15:39] » So, if I may, Mr. Tyson, so typically we'd be having this meeting in the

[15:43] conference room, right? It got a little busy at the last meeting, so we decided

[15:46] to move it here in this setting. Um, the 5 PM session, the work session's always

[15:51] been intended to have some back and forth between the planning commission

[15:54] and staff just to get your ideas, um, your questions, your concerns, uh, to

[15:59] staff. That way, we can work through those items together. Here today at 5:00

[16:03] PM, the intent is for us to kind of present, give you an overview of what

[16:07] the solar ordinance looks like as it's in a rough draft right now. And then

[16:11] because the board only authorized a 100 days worth of review at 6 PM the public

[16:16] hearing would be to actually consider public comment and then make a decision.

[16:20] » But what I don't understand what I absolutely don't understand is

[16:25] that the board of supervisors made a motion. Motion was that it the solar

[16:32] issue was going to come to the planning commission.

[16:34] » It is work on it >> right now. Yes.

[16:38] This is it. >> Yeah.

[16:41] » This is the planning commission working on solar.

[16:44] » This is what we're trying to explain to you. If we could hear the staff's

[16:47] presentation, >> then we are going to discuss amongst

[16:50] ourselves whether what action we want to take after that. And it it may be to

[16:57] deny these recommendations and give us all more time to review and work. It may

[17:02] be to accept the recommendations. I I don't know. So, everybody sitting here

[17:07] has a lot of questions. So, in the interest of time, let's please have

[17:11] staff give their presentation and then we'll have our usual conversation back

[17:15] and forth and then the public hearing will happen at 6 p.m. where we hear from

[17:20] the public. >> Shouldn't the presentation

[17:22] be at 6:00 for the good of the people that are going to be attending the

[17:26] public hearing? >> It will, if I may, it will be

[17:29] » be a repeat. >> It be a repeat.

[17:30] » That's how we always do it. Yes. Are you going to give feedback?

[17:35] » We don't take comments from the public. I'm sorry, Melissa. This is a work

[17:38] session part. You'll be able to speak in the 6 PM public hearing part. John, can

[17:42] you please start the presentation? >> Yes, ma'am. So, as we're getting to uh

[17:47] for some background to why we're even discussing this today, there were some

[17:50] pretty major changes at the state level. The general assembly and the governor

[17:53] had passed some new legislation surrounding solar and what local

[17:57] governments can do to actually regulate solar and their localities.

[18:02] So at that same time, members of the planning commission, you all and the

[18:05] board of supervisors expressed some interest in addressing the impact of

[18:08] solar facilities on prime farmland, erodable soils, and on areas with high

[18:13] visibility from cultural and recreational assets. As I mentioned

[18:17] before, the board authorized the planning commission to review the solar

[18:20] ordinance and make recommendation to the board on adoption not later than 100

[18:23] days after the May 26, 2026 agenda. And the board also authorized the planning

[18:28] commission to amend the comprehensive plan to include guidance on appropriate

[18:33] sighting of those facilities not later than November 30, 2026. So, we're here

[18:37] today to kind of hopefully mesh those two things together. You guys get a

[18:40] first draft, a first look, as it were, uh, about the solar ordinance itself. We

[18:44] get some of your comments back and then we work with the consultants on some

[18:48] suggestions back to you. >> Where is this background in our packet?

[18:52] » Um, this is included on the presentation. I'm not sure that this

[18:56] background was actually in your packet.

[19:00] » All right, I need time to read it. >> Please, Secret.

[19:04] » The 2026 Virginia General Assembly adopted amendments to state code that

[19:09] partially preempt the county zoning ordinance on solar facilities. Okay.

[19:15] Additionally, members of a planning commission, a board of planning, what

[19:20] members of the expressed interest in addressing the impact of solar

[19:24] facilities on farmland, erodable soil, and on areas with high visibility

[19:29] cultural recreational assets? Were they

[19:35] in in what you generated? Did you reach out to

[19:40] all of these people, the the planning commission members and supervisors and

[19:46] the public in what you've created or was it done without any contact with any of

[19:52] those people? I mean, you're saying that you're implying that it is sort of this

[19:59] joint kind of interest on this, but I haven't received

[20:04] one call from anybody on anything. Has anybody else

[20:10] » That's what we're trying to do right now. M.

[20:12] » That's what we're doing now. >> Okay. The board of supervisors

[20:17] authorized the planning commission to review the solar ordinance and make a

[20:21] recommendation to the board on a Okay. They they did do that. They authorized

[20:27] the planning commission. >> Mhm.

[20:32] » That's what and this is like our first look at

[20:34] » what's before us has didn't come at all from the planning commission. It was

[20:39] created >> we're discussing right now to decide

[20:41] what we want to go forward if we move on.

[20:44] » Okay. the board of supervisors authorized the plan to amend a

[20:48] comprehensive plan. Okay. >> It was a big project. So I believe we

[20:52] had some >> It's a huge project. It's a huge project

[20:56] and we're going to and we're going to do it in about what 10 minutes, 15 minutes.

[21:02] » Our decision after we can hear the presentation.

[21:04] » Okay. >> Go ahead, John.

[21:07] » Yes ma'am. So

[21:09] » it's a work session. We are able to talk and ask questions and all of that. I

[21:14] guess >> we can get to it. Yes, we can.

[21:16] » Well, I thought this is getting to it. >> I mean,

[21:20] » please proceed, Mr. >> Yes, ma'am. So, some of the highlighted

[21:23] changes with the solar ordinance that was provided that are all in line with

[21:26] the state code requirements. Include some new definitions and amended

[21:31] definitions. I've selected a few here to put on the screen. Those definitions are

[21:35] in your packet, but some new definitions apply a new definition to agics,

[21:40] battery, energy storage facilities, integrative photovoltaics, net metering

[21:45] provisions, and small portable generation devices. These are all

[21:48] included in state code as well. And then some of the emitten definitions, these

[21:53] are definitions that are ordinance as it's written today, the one that's in

[21:56] effect now already had, but these are aligning with those new state code

[22:00] requirements. So that's solar energy equipment, solar energy facility minor

[22:05] scale, small scale, and utility scale. So provide you a little bit more detail

[22:09] as to what those are. The solar energy equipment simply adds battery storage to

[22:14] that definition to meet state code requirements.

[22:17] » Excuse me. On the minor, what how do you delineate minor versus small versus

[22:23] utility? >> That's a fantastic question. I'm about

[22:25] to get to that. So for solar energy facilities minor scale that

[22:28] recategorizes those facilities to less than one megawatt of production power.

[22:33] For small for solar energy facility small scale that recategorizes that to

[22:38] not exceeding 20 kilowatts. And then for utility scale we had that at 5 megawatts

[22:44] was kind of the minimum for that to be considered utility scale. State code

[22:48] kind of puts that at 1 megawatt. So, just to make sure that we're in

[22:50] alignment with that, uh, they're proposing recategorizing that to more

[22:54] than one megawatt and clarifies the intent for power to serve off-site

[22:58] needs. That was a little bit fuzzy. We did have questions from some solar

[23:01] developers as to whether that could serve off-site. And that addition in

[23:06] there is just to make sure that that is taken care of.

[23:08] » So, a five megawatt facility would be what?

[23:11] » Utility scale. So, anything more greater than one megawatt of production would be

[23:15] then considered utility scale. And that's in alignment with those state

[23:18] code changes. >> So how do you go from 20 to one?

[23:22] » So 20 megawws.

[23:26] » So the if you look at the minor scale that's less than one megawatt that solar

[23:30] energy facility small scale is not to exceed 20 kilowatts and then utility

[23:35] scale is anything greater than one. >> Right. Right. What I'm asking what I'm

[23:39] asking is that small scale does not exceed 20 kilowatts.

[23:43] » Correct. And utility scale is anything above one

[23:47] megawatt. >> Yes sir.

[23:48] » So when you go from anything above tw 20 kilowatts what is that?

[23:53] » Um between >> minor

[23:55] » 20 kilowatts and one megawatt would be minor scale. Anything over one megawatt.

[24:00] » That's minor scale. >> Yes sir.

[24:05] » So those changes of course were made to be in alignment with state code. Um

[24:09] included with that are some modifications to where these are

[24:12] permitted. I know this table's probably not the best reader friendly here, but

[24:17] you'll see that that small portable solar generation device. Those are

[24:20] things that folks can hang on their balconies and plug in um and actually

[24:24] serve the needs in their homes themselves. That's a new addition to

[24:27] state code. If I'm not mistaken, and I'm probably for ran into things I shouldn't

[24:31] talk about, I think US and Utah are the only two states that allow that in that

[24:35] capacity. And then you'll see the minor scale ground mounted facilities are

[24:40] included as permitted by right in any commercial or industrial um district and

[24:45] that is in alignment with state code as well. And then the utility scale

[24:49] includes those by special exception permit.

[24:52] » Can I interrupt you a second? Yes, ma'am.

[24:54] » The changes shown on this chart are things that we basically have no choice

[24:59] in. These are the new mandates, right? >> A lot of these are driven by state code

[25:03] requirements. Yes, ma'am. The things that we do have a little bit of control

[25:05] over will come into next slide or two. >> Okay.

[25:12] » So solar of course as the ordinance is drafted today includes a lot of what we

[25:16] call development standards. So even if they come to you all and request a

[25:20] special exception permit before it even gets to you. They've worked with staff

[25:24] to make sure that those pieces of the ordinance are included in their

[25:28] application. So these are required regardless of whether they came to you

[25:32] for a public hearing or if they died on the branch before they even came to you

[25:35] all. So some of those development standards amended setbacks in line with

[25:39] state code changes. Um something that's good to see in there is the addition of

[25:43] setbacks from wetlands or perennial streams. So I think that was a big

[25:46] concern that we t discussed during those two items that came up earlier this

[25:50] year. It clarifies the erosion and sediment control regulations by tying

[25:55] them to what the state requires. This is always something that was required of

[25:58] them to meet, but this just spells out in code what exactly they have to do.

[26:03] This next bullet, it adds wildlife corridor requirements for fencing. So,

[26:08] these facilities are required to be fenced. Wildlife sees that as a barrier

[26:12] and makes it difficult for them to pass through these facilities to to the

[26:15] extent possible. The facilities have to be designed in such a way to mitigate

[26:19] those impacts to wildlife as they move through our natural environment.

[26:23] The next one is a reduction in vegetative buffer width. That is not

[26:26] something that we wanted, but that is something that is per state code

[26:29] changes. So that's a reduction from 150 to 50 feet in width, which is a pretty

[26:34] big drop. And then a reduction in those new tree planting size from five feet to

[26:38] three feet. So that's also a pretty substantive drop

[26:41] » and we don't have any way to avoid that change.

[26:45] » No. When we when we worked with the consultants on this as staff, we said

[26:48] what we heard from planning commission and the board during these public

[26:50] hearings is to the extent possible, we want the maximum restrictions on these

[26:55] types of facilities for their placement, for their um buffering requirements, for

[27:00] their setbacks. We want to make sure that these facilities, if they come to

[27:04] you all for a vote, are meeting the strictest requirements of the state.

[27:08] » But I did see something in there about uh fencing as well to go along with that

[27:12] 50 ft. Is that >> yes?

[27:15] » Okay. So that instead of 150 ft, they basically have to do 50 ft and some type

[27:21] of opaque fencing. >> Believe it has to be outside the buffer

[27:24] requirement. But let me take a quick look at that too and see if I can get

[27:27] you an answer. >> Yeah.

[27:30] » And this is why we wanted to work on >> Yeah.

[27:34] » So another big impact here uh is this increase in panel height. We had it a

[27:39] maximum of 12 feet. the state code uh makes sure that we have that up to 25

[27:43] feet. So that is at the top of the panel. So if they're at a tilt, the top

[27:47] tilt of that panel could go up to 25 feet.

[27:50] » Was it 12 feet before? >> Yes, sir.

[27:56] » So and then this last piece here um is adding stringent prime farmland and

[28:01] erodable land protections. That is definitely something that we heard from

[28:04] you all. We made sure the consultants included that in the uh actual draft and

[28:09] they do tie those to the USDA specific requirements of what is prime farmland

[28:14] and roable land protections. And you may have seen too, I did forward

[28:19] you all some comments from one of the solar facilities that reviewed this. Um

[28:25] this is not a judgment call either way on my part, but they felt that those

[28:29] were way too stringent for their ability to develop in Bodat County. Um, so I

[28:34] just want to make sure you all realize that we did not try to give an e easy

[28:37] pass. We're not trying to make this super easy for anybody because that's

[28:40] not the message we heard from you. >> Could you repeat that? Who who's who

[28:44] feels this is too stringent? >> Um, one of the one of the solar

[28:47] facilities had reached out because they've been obviously

[28:49] » that's the email that you sent us earlier today.

[28:52] » Yes, sir. They had reached out and said they had some significant concerns about

[28:56] their ability to develop with the language that's drafted in this

[28:59] ordinance. Now you say stringent prime farmland and erodable land protections.

[29:05] I studied this. I found one paragraph small

[29:10] point about prime farmland and one bullet point regarding a rollable land

[29:16] protections. Is that the stringent protections that you're referring to or

[29:20] are there more embodied here that I just couldn't find?

[29:23] » That that's more what I was referring to because it does bring those up. So you

[29:27] would have seen before in the ordinance it says identification of recently

[29:30] cultivated lands and predominant soil types of those lands. But now it

[29:34] includes that piece that talks about delineation of any prime farmland and

[29:38] highly erodable land or potentially highly erodable as well. And this will

[29:42] be used in conjunction with the comprehensive plan to help you all make

[29:46] sure that if that is something you really feel strongly about that solar

[29:50] should not be in those areas. The comprehensive plan will also help you

[29:53] when you get a chance to review that. >> Okay. Now, now Tom Williamson,

[29:59] um, who's a farmer and well educated in soil, has a degree in that, uh,

[30:04] accredited, as a matter of fact, he actually submitted to the county a

[30:10] proposed language for protecting prime farmland,

[30:17] identifying it, protecting it, and also with um highly erodable land. But his

[30:25] input was really watered down. Who watered it down? Why was it watered

[30:30] down? >> This says no ground mounted minor

[30:33] utility skills shall be on any part located on prime farmland. That doesn't

[30:37] look watered down to me at all. I >> I'm talking about what he submitted, not

[30:42] » Yeah, Mr. Tyson, I'm I'd be happy to answer that question. Um I'm not

[30:46] familiar with those specific comments that Mr. Williamson may have submitted.

[30:49] if that's something that you want to include in here. I mean, this is

[30:52] definitely the opportunity to make sure those comments and feedback are

[30:56] » well, that's what precipitated the board to actually

[31:00] do this. >> I saw a lot of technical research that

[31:03] was submitted before I may have missed where he he provided some suggested

[31:06] language and if so, that's totally on me. But I did see a significant amount

[31:10] of research that had been done in this whole facility.

[31:13] » John Alderson funded there was a legal effort to basically

[31:18] come up with language and that was submitted to the board for consideration

[31:24] and that consideration resulted in going back to the planning commission and

[31:30] where we are today. So, I'm just curious that initial proposed language

[31:36] was really watered down by a lot. Okay. And I'm wondering who did that and why

[31:42] did they do that rather than adopt it as it was presented through the board of

[31:47] supervisors. >> Mr. Tyson, I think I can answer that

[31:50] question to some degree. I actually had conversations with the law firm of Woods

[31:55] Rogers which represented John Alderson and actually the language that you see

[31:59] in here is virtually identical to the language that Woods Rogers developed and

[32:03] submitted in their draft. >> It is identical.

[32:06] » I said close to identical. I mean, the the argument that they

[32:12] » see I did not see their their their research that they had done, which

[32:15] presumably was done in preparation for litigation against the county if there

[32:20] were if the solar farm had been approved. So, it was a situation where I

[32:26] where we got what we got through the attorneys.

[32:30] But but what I'm reading is that >> no nothing can be done on prime farmland

[32:34] and nothing can be done on any erodable land as defined by the United States

[32:39] Department of Agriculture. And what they were arguing about, and correct me if

[32:44] I'm wrong, but they were arguing that that was too strict, that they wanted

[32:48] the opportunity to put some on some potential prime farmland, and that's not

[32:52] what's in here. What's in here is saying no prime farmland, no erodable land.

[32:57] » No, I agree. >> That's what this says. I I mean I'm not

[33:00] sure how that's watered down. >> I guess that's what I'm trying to figure

[33:03] out. What do you mean watered down? That says none. None.

[33:07] » All right. We're miscommunicating. >> Okay.

[33:09] » All right. Apparently the Williamsons >> um John Alderson with Tom Williamson.

[33:17] I guess they have some collaborated with an attorney, the law firm. I didn't know

[33:24] who the law firm was. It has been pointed out. and they submitted

[33:27] language. I received a copy of that. Okay. Um and what what I was given and

[33:36] what's in this is different. It's now I'm not saying that's bad. I'm not

[33:42] saying that's not adequate. What I'm saying is that it was changed.

[33:47] » I don't think it's our responsibility to take verbatim what a law group

[33:53] » I don't think. I think this is pretty strict and it I

[33:57] think meets the intent that we were worried about on those two other public

[34:00] hearings. I think if the intent bothers you, then we should

[34:04] » no work on that. But I don't think we need to worry about whether it was

[34:07] verbatim from Auburn or Mr. Williamson's documents,

[34:12] » right? Like that's not our responsibility is to take a civilian's

[34:16] verbatim language. This is pretty strong. As Mr. Lucas said, it says,

[34:20] none, done. >> Who enforces that? Who actually

[34:22] determines that? Okay. I mean, I asked >> we are right now.

[34:27] » I asked what, you know, of all of Batad County,

[34:33] where is the prime farmland defined? And I was sent something of via email that

[34:41] was hard to basically discern um and how it translated to a particular

[34:48] parcel. I don't know how that translation occurs. Okay. Um, so maybe

[34:54] that can be explained. All right. So somebody would have to say, "Hey, is

[34:58] this parcel here prime farmland or not?" >> Mr. How

[35:03] » the USDA has a website that defines prime farmland and they have a number of

[35:08] criteria that evaluate that. That flows all the way down to everything in Bitac

[35:13] County, including the soil and water conservation group. So it's not it's

[35:18] it's a USDA definition identification. It's not anybody locally that that says

[35:25] that. Does that answer the who? >> No, I I Okay,

[35:32] so the the

[35:35] solar farm application that was retracted.

[35:41] » Um how much of that is on prime farmland?

[35:44] » One of the one of them had a small percentage I

[35:48] believe and one of them had zero. One of them was on no prime farmland

[35:52] whatsoever. And I think one of them had a a small amount of that wasn't even it

[35:56] was in the same truck, but it wasn't part of the solar panels themselves, if

[36:00] I remember correct. >> And the and the erodable land also is

[36:04] defined. >> All right. You're saying our entire

[36:07] Bodat County has been mapped for prime farmland and for erodable land. Is that

[36:15] correct? And you can take that mapping that was done and apply it to a

[36:20] particular parcel and know which parcel which part of that is erodable and which

[36:25] part is prime. Is that correct? >> So did some research too because I had

[36:29] those same questions. The prime farmland piece does have a online mapping tool.

[36:34] It's actually through DCR. I think it's data that comes from DA. If there's

[36:38] somebody that's more expert in that than me, I'm sure I said something wrong. The

[36:42] highly erodable land or potentially highly erodable land that's referenced

[36:46] in this document, the draft is based off criteria set forth by USDA um under some

[36:52] federal regulations. It's 7 CFR sections 12.21 through 22. I tried to find a map

[36:58] of that. I was unsuccessful finding a map that showed what those soils are,

[37:02] but it does define the soil types that are considered highly erodable or

[37:07] potentially highly erodable. So, as of right now, I don't have a map and I

[37:11] can't tell you that I have a map that's been done for the whole county, but I

[37:14] know there's been soil testing that's been done that shows which soils fit in

[37:18] that category. And there's a whole table that's online as well. So, let's say

[37:22] that a let's say that a facility is approved and it's and and and and the

[37:30] applicant indicates that none of the farmland is on erodable land and a solar

[37:37] facility is installed and it's eroding and it's eroding badly.

[37:42] Um what happens then? So there are regulations provided

[37:48] through DEEQ I believe that would meet the erosion and sediment control. I

[37:52] think it would be up to you all and the board to ensure that that information

[37:55] about erodable land protections is considered at the time of the

[37:59] application and afterwards if there is significant erosion on the property

[38:04] itself. It would be actions through our department and possibly with DEEQ as

[38:08] well to ensure that mitigates. >> That all sounds great. Okay, there's a

[38:12] lot of words there, but we're trying to come up with a a a a

[38:17] an ordinance that is sort of all-incclusive. So, in this ordinance,

[38:22] where does it talk about a facility that gets installed on land that is not

[38:28] deemed erodable, but in fact is eroding?

[38:33] I I didn't find anything in here at all. There's no corrective action that's

[38:38] mandated, required, a timetable, number of notices that have to be provided, and

[38:44] a potential consequence if they in fact don't

[38:49] correct. There's is did I miss any of that or is

[38:53] that all missing? >> I think that's a really good point that

[38:56] that we could get. Could you explain to us maybe the difference between

[39:03] » That's a confusing point. the difference between what goes into an ordinance for

[39:08] planning purposes versus where does the enforcement corrective action fall

[39:14] within ordinances or outside? >> Yeah, I mean that yeah, it's a fantastic

[39:18] question. Um, and I'll point to other sections of the code that also don't

[39:22] have that language in it. So like an SCP for a slaughterhouse, for example,

[39:26] doesn't include those things in it either. Not everything is going to

[39:29] include that that hard fine language that you want to see in this and it's

[39:34] because it's referenced and enforced in other pieces of the code. I think it's

[39:38] chapter 10 has everything about erosion and sediment control in it and the

[39:43] measures and procedures to enforce and then fine or come to corrective actions

[39:47] through that piece of the ordinance. And that's what this tries to do here. Um,

[39:52] if you see erosion and sediment control, it talks about the V general VPDEES

[39:57] permit for discharge to storm water, talks about construction activities. But

[40:01] if you want to see additional language that really hones that in, we can see if

[40:06] we can include that in here and make it very explicit.

[40:09] » And I think that you make a great point. Also, Mr. Cooper who runs our storm

[40:14] water management program is here and can answer those questions. But I would just

[40:17] speak to the fact that we need to be careful not to have any conflicting or

[40:20] overlapping um code that would make it more complicated to enforce. But um he

[40:27] can speak to any questions that you have about that program.

[40:29] » Mr. Cooper, do you mind coming down? I think this is worth clarifying for us to

[40:34] understand the difference. >> And let me ask this too. Um on the

[40:37] application process itself, would there be this prime farming land or erodable

[40:43] farmland orable land? Like is there a designation or is there a box like

[40:49] somebody can is checking that before it comes?

[40:52] » If this if this is the final language that says no facilities on prime

[40:55] farmland, the very first thing we're going to do because that's an easy check

[40:58] is look and it's like if it's on there, you're not coming to the planning

[41:01] commission, >> right?

[41:02] » A roadable, like I said, I've not seen a map. We'd have to identify some of the

[41:06] soils. It might be a bigger lift. But same thing, we don't let applications

[41:09] come to you all or the board if they don't meet those requirements of the

[41:12] ordinance. And >> I mean, if you put if you put me in

[41:14] front of a parcel, I wouldn't know whether it's a roadable or not. I don't

[41:20] have the expertise to call it. Okay. I'm not sure anybody that's hired here in

[41:25] Bodatat County might have that expertise. Might require somebody that's

[41:29] expert on that particular subject. Right. So, um,

[41:34] » Mr. Cooper might be able to help you. He's up.

[41:37] » How are you all tonight? Good. Uh, there's a website there through NRCS

[41:42] that shows all the soil surveys within the county. They list them, uh, I don't

[41:48] know if they list them as highly erodable or exactly how they do that. I

[41:53] can't remember the specific language, but every project has to go through a

[41:58] soil survey. >> Okay. Well, tell me, we we did approve

[42:01] one solar facility. Was any of that on prime farmland?

[42:06] » I don't know. To be honest with you, I didn't review and approve the project

[42:09] that was >> Was any of that was any of that solar

[42:12] that was approved on erodable land? >> I don't know. I didn't review and

[42:16] approve that project. >> So, basically, what we had in place

[42:19] really didn't cover that. But now, what we're putting in place is going to cover

[42:23] it, >> right?

[42:26] » Appears to. So, um I have a question. Solar, what the attitude towards solar?

[42:33] It's it's different than other facilities. Okay. Other facilities,

[42:37] you know, they're they're approved. They're built. They're expected to be

[42:41] there for a long time. Is solar considered to be temporary? I've heard

[42:46] that before now over and over. It's temporary. It's temporary. It's

[42:50] temporary. Is it temporary or is it permanent? And if it's temporary,

[42:56] What do you delineate as temporary? I mean, something that's going to be in

[43:01] there for 40, 50 years, >> it's not so temporary for me. Okay. What

[43:07] So if is it temporary or are or or is are we taking prime farmland, whether

[43:15] it's prime or not, and allowing an industrialization of it with solar on a

[43:23] permanent basis? >> Mhm. Is that what we're doing or are we

[43:27] saying well it's only temporary but we don't delineate what temporary means. Is

[43:34] it >> sure

[43:35] » five years? Is it 10? >> It's a great question. Um I'll give you

[43:39] two answers to that. Right. The first one is I guess anything's temporary if

[43:42] your time frame is long enough. Right. The second one is we do have what are

[43:46] temporary uses in the ordinance. Um and I think those are actually 30 days. So

[43:50] we would not consider this a temporary use. I would say it's something that

[43:54] does have a a useful life to it and does have a decommissioning. Anything that

[43:58] would have a pre-planned decommissioning is something that we would treat

[44:02] differently from a a house. Somebody could build a house today on prime

[44:05] farmland. >> Sure,

[44:06] » we don't have any restrictions to that whatsoever.

[44:08] » But for solar, we would. And there are two very different uses and so it might

[44:12] make sense to have those for one and not the other.

[44:15] » So I talked to a lot of farmers. >> Mr. Tyson, can I ask you if you could

[44:19] just please wrap that up? >> Why quickly? This is the work session.

[44:22] Mr. >> Lucas and Mr. Hartman have not had a

[44:24] chance to speak yet and I just want to share some time and then come back to

[44:27] you. So, if you don't mind finishing that thought, we'll let everybody else

[44:31] speak and come back to you, please. >> I'm not trying to dominate.

[44:34] » I know I'm that's why I'm asking you to finish your thought so that you won't be

[44:37] dominating. I know you're not doing it on purpose, but the but the rest of us

[44:40] have questions, too. >> All right. I spoke to a lot of farmers

[44:45] and they said the longer that solar facility is on that land,

[44:52] the more unlikely you'll ever restore that land for farming ever again. Okay,

[44:58] that's what I heard over and over again. Farmer after farmer after farmer said in

[45:03] effect that. Okay, so I said well when would be a detrimental timetable? They

[45:10] said 15 years. If it's there for more than 15 years, forget it. You're you're

[45:17] not going to be able to restore that land now. 15 20 years. Some said 20,

[45:22] some said 15. Um it was interesting. They're farmers.

[45:26] They're expert at this. They they know soil and all that. and and and so if

[45:33] that's the case, why wouldn't we say, "Sure, build a build a solar facility,

[45:39] but at the end of that period, 15 or 20 years, okay, it's got to it's got to go

[45:44] away. It's got to go away." Okay? It's got to be decommissioned. Not only

[45:50] decommissioned, but it's got to be totally restored.

[45:53] » That's something that we can consider in our right. We can consider that as a

[45:58] point. Okay. I would want to defer to uh legal counsel to see if there's any

[46:01] state code requirements about, you know, if you can kind of put a sunset on those

[46:06] or not. But that would be a policy decision for you all and the board of

[46:09] supervisors to make. >> And I'm also curious, are you trying to

[46:15] I don't mean to argue with the point, but I mean, are you trying to push for

[46:18] the point that it should not be on prime farmland, or are you trying to push for

[46:21] the point that you can put it on prime farmland? Because if you're arguing you

[46:24] shouldn't put it on prime farmland, I don't know why we're talking about it

[46:27] because that's what's in here. >> No, no, I'm talking about farmland.

[46:29] » You want it on farmland. You want solar panels on

[46:33] » farmland. We're differentiating farmland and prime farmland, right? Okay.

[46:37] » We're saying it can't go on prime farmland.

[46:39] » Question that could we limit could we set a sunset? Your is your I think your

[46:46] question is can we say all right it's got to be decommissioned in 15 years 20

[46:51] years. Pick a number. That's what you're saying, right?

[46:54] » You're wanting to limit. You don't want it to have a 40-year lifespan. You want

[46:57] it to have >> Yeah. I'm just trying to figure out if

[47:00] you're looking to put it on farmland because the way it's written says no

[47:04] prime farmland. I'm assuming that's farmland.

[47:06] » Well, >> and if it's farmland, I don't want it on

[47:09] farmland. So, that's what's written. And I if you were wanting on farmland, then

[47:13] I don't know what. >> Excellent. Excellent point. Okay. So,

[47:16] let's talk about A1, agriculture >> land. Okay. Is agricultural land

[47:22] farmland? >> Not all.

[47:25] » Not I mean not necessarily. This is by definition the USDA prime farmland. Now

[47:31] we might need to look into deeper dive as far as what restrictions they put on

[47:35] that as far as >> okay

[47:37] » official prime farmland versus >> just farmland or agricultural land.

[47:42] » I don't know whe this is semantics or whether this is an excellent point that

[47:45] you're making. I I I regarded agricultural

[47:49] as basically >> all farmland.

[47:52] » Farmland. >> I don't think that's the case.

[47:53] » And some of it is prime and some of it isn't prime.

[47:57] » That's not >> I I I think that's that seems correct,

[48:01] right? Agricultural land is agricultural land zoning

[48:05] » and in agricultural land we have some of it is considered prime farmland,

[48:10] » right? And some of it is not. But I would say that maybe if you're thinking

[48:13] about an A1 zoning means you're looking at a farm, that's not necessarily

[48:20] correct, >> right? That's not prime farmland.

[48:22] » A a A1 zoning doesn't mean tractors and cows are running around. It could mean

[48:27] that. >> No, I I I I

[48:29] Okay, >> but you know, it could be like other,

[48:32] you know, there's houses, there's it's not it's not it's not far far. It's not

[48:37] » Y'all explain A1 better than me. That's your job.

[48:42] Yeah, I mean you're right. Not all A1 zone property is prime farmland and not

[48:47] all A1 zone property has farms on it. There is A1 that has

[48:52] » Let me let me ask you. >> Sure. Is any farming done on non-prime

[48:56] farmland? >> I'm sure there probably is.

[49:00] » Great. Okay. So, there is farming done on land that's not prime.

[49:05] » That sounds fair. And it and and we're saying that on that land we could put a

[49:10] solar facility >> if we

[49:12] » That's a great question. I think that would be correct underneath the this

[49:15] ordinance. If you grant an SCP, >> they'd have to come and present that to

[49:20] you beforehand, >> right?

[49:23] » And what you would want to see, of course, if I can, you know, make this

[49:27] assumption is in your comprehensive plan, the updates to that, you would

[49:31] say, "We really want to see solar not be on any farmland.

[49:35] We want to see it on industrial zone property or on rooftops or above parking

[49:40] lots or whatever that you might seem fit.

[49:42] » But I think the state is telling us that we can't limit it that way. Is that

[49:47] » can we before we go down that path? I'm sorry. It's a quarter teal. Can you hold

[49:52] your finish your stuff in the in the public hearing part, Mr. Tyson? It's not

[49:56] the end of the conversation. I want to give these gentlemen a chance. Do you do

[49:59] you guys want to pipe in here or are you happy with Mr. T? Can I just draw just a

[50:03] real quick connection to that's why we um have heard and are so um supportive

[50:09] of of marrying the zoning ordinance and the comp plan together to be looking at

[50:13] those in tandem with each other rather than separate because the potential

[50:17] avenue for that is is with the state code changes more flexibility through

[50:21] the comp plan than the zoning ordinance. I'm sorry to jump in. I hope that was

[50:26] okay. >> I had a question about that. the state

[50:29] code. So it changed from 12 feet to 25 feet. Is that something that monot has

[50:35] to go by? Is that what what what's >> I think so

[50:39] » on everything if they changed at the state code

[50:43] » ground mounted facilities they increased the panel height we had 12 is the

[50:46] restriction. I believe they cap that at 25 and I don't know there's a whole lot

[50:50] we can do about that. >> You can't put it in the SCP that you

[50:53] » although they made it you you can't it has to be 25 ft. That's by state law.

[50:58] However, they made clear in the state law that that was at full tilt. So, it's

[51:03] when it's all the way up as opposed to flat or slightly angled,

[51:08] » which we I I don't know whether we would have measured it previously under where

[51:12] the pivot point is or what. >> Jason gray to the top of the panel, I

[51:16] think, is how it was spelled out. >> Yeah.

[51:18] » Well, I I got a question about so that Berkeley Group, they put this together.

[51:24] » Who looked at it after it got put together in Bonat?

[51:27] » Yeah, it's a great question. So, um, the kickoff that we had was with staff in

[51:31] Berkeley Group. I actually have that in front of me. We met with them.

[51:35] » Who is we? >> Uh, myself, Matt Lindsay, planner my

[51:39] department. I don't know that he's here tonight. Um, we met with them and I

[51:43] don't think Nicole was in there. She was off at that time. But what we did was we

[51:47] took what we had heard from you all. We took what we heard from the community

[51:51] from those public hearings and the board of supervisors and told them that we

[51:55] need to meet state code requirements as directed by the board and the planning

[51:59] commission and we want to be very restrictive as far as we can take it is

[52:04] my understanding and so that's what we communicated to them. We had a kickoff

[52:07] meeting on June 9th and then we received a draft of an initial draft on July

[52:13] 14th. We met on July 21st to discuss that draft. We had some modifications

[52:19] that from what we understand that we knew from these previous meetings with

[52:22] you all that we felt should be reflected in that draft and then we received a

[52:27] final rough draft on July 27th. So this 100 days has been a really tight

[52:32] turnaround and that's why I don't think the ordinance is directly perfect yet

[52:35] for you all. >> Who was in those meetings

[52:38] » in the in the Berkeley group? No, when you all had the meeting,

[52:42] » myself, uh, Matt Lindsay, and then Nicole was in that July 27th meeting, I

[52:47] believe. >> What other companies did you interview?

[52:50] » We didn't interview anybody. We have an on call contract with Berkeley Group.

[52:54] Um, and we selected them because they are widely regarded as very

[52:57] knowledgeable in solar and we already have a pretty um, good working

[53:00] connection with them. >> But on their website, they basically say

[53:04] that they promote the development of solar. Is that a direct quote from the

[53:10] site? Because I would want to make sure that's the case.

[53:13] » No, because I I had asked you whether or not they were pro or and you said they

[53:17] were absolutely neutral. But if you go on their site that

[53:19] » did you ask me >> in one of the meetings.

[53:22] » Okay. >> It's in the minutes.

[53:24] » Okay. >> Okay. And you said no, no, they're

[53:26] absolutely neutral. They're not pro. They're not anti Okay.

[53:30] » So, you have a contract with them? >> We do. As far as I understand, we have

[53:34] an on call contract. We have a work order that's been signed um with them

[53:38] that spells out the work product they're supposed to submit to us and then

[53:42] present to you all. We do have in there um one round of revision as directed by

[53:46] you all as well. So what we intend to do is take your comments and then pass them

[53:51] to them. Say these are the things that we heard and they had questions about.

[53:54] Can we do anything about that? They'll get it back to us and then that piece is

[53:59] done and we will work with you all again to see if that met your intent.

[54:02] » Add a couple quick notes in there. Um, this is just, you know, minor details,

[54:07] but in one of the sections where it went numbered 7 8 9 10, it skipped 11. Not a

[54:14] big deal, but that definitely would need to be fixed. And then the biggest one

[54:17] for me that I ran into was when they were talking about um soil going back

[54:24] onto the land. And I'm struggling to find where that was on there cuz I'm not

[54:30] sure if we'll get far enough down in the work session, but um it said something

[54:34] to the effect of um if the soil needed to be

[54:39] Oh, it's um under storm water. Top soil shall not be

[54:44] removed from the site and shall be returned to uh disturbed areas unless

[54:50] returning soil would cause adverse impact to top soil integrity or is not

[54:56] practical for construction activities. And I want to know who determines

[55:01] whether that is, you know, who who decides whether or

[55:06] not it is not practical for construction activities. Do they get to decide

[55:10] whether it's not? because I don't I don't think that's appropriate. I feel

[55:14] like, you know, there should be either the planning commission or the board or

[55:20] um someone that actually gets the reason why they wouldn't return top soil back

[55:25] to the site. >> Would that be something in your purview,

[55:28] Mr. Cooper? Like or could we we somehow >> like it's dee you would use some sort of

[55:34] » possibly >> local inspection,

[55:36] » right? under some type of inspection or they need to provide a reason and

[55:39] somebody verify that that's an actual reason not to return soil.

[55:43] » We might be able to tag that.

[55:47] » Sorry, that was a big one that I saw that I didn't like.

[55:50] » I think that's a good point and I don't I'm sorry to interrupt us, but it is 10

[55:55] to six. So, I just wanted to do a quick um consensus a feel from people. Um, my

[56:02] thought might my thought is for consideration is that we um

[56:10] go through the six o'clock public hearing and then make our make our

[56:13] recommendation to whatever we're going to do about this. I don't want to put

[56:16] words into people's mouth, but after that, I'm thinking if the vote is no,

[56:21] would the planning commission be willing to work out a date that we either had a

[56:29] special session, work session, or at our next work session, we we meet like say 4

[56:34] to 6, >> 4 to 6 or something like that? I I feel

[56:37] like there's a lot of >> there's a lot of

[56:39] » stuff in here that I mean like >> I really applaud the fact that they have

[56:45] tried to put it restrictive but I feel like we need to discuss this a whole lot

[56:49] more cuz I mean I've been one that I much prefer solar panels buildings

[56:56] going >> you know pavement let's not put it out

[57:00] countryside because that is not okay >> I just don't like the look of it I mean

[57:05] I want solar energy But I don't also want our county covered with solar

[57:10] panels. >> And so as such, I feel like, you know,

[57:13] we need to look at this >> longer than just the one time that it's

[57:18] been presented to us. And so >> I wouldn't vote for this,

[57:23] » not because I don't like it, but because I think we need more time on it.

[57:26] » And that was totally just my opinion. >> Yeah. Thank you.

[57:29] » I I concur. I Well said. I concur as well. But I have a lot of things that we

[57:36] need to talk about at six o'clock on this.

[57:38] » So my recommendation because Mr. Hartman also has some a list of recommendations

[57:43] or suggestions that he wanted to share with us and we obviously aren't going to

[57:46] get time to do that. Um >> that's all right. I can

[57:51] » he's going to hand these out to us and I think my suggestion since it sounds like

[57:55] we're all in agreement that this is a lot of work, none of us are ready to say

[57:59] yes to it, >> right? that um we we could we could have

[58:05] a vote right now. We can we will have the public hearing to receive more

[58:08] public comment. And I think maybe then at 6:00 I think maybe at that point we

[58:15] could decide on our timeline for how we're going to address all of this

[58:19] instead of trying to do it all tonight. >> Yeah. I think we have to vote on this.

[58:23] » We have to during >> Yeah.

[58:26] » So, does that sound okay with everybody that we do it that way? Um we have

[58:31] » sorry if I present these at this point. >> Um

[58:36] do we have a field review? >> It's on the agenda. Um we have a rare uh

[58:41] next month where we don't actually have any applications. So unless you wanted

[58:45] to meet on solar, we would not have a meeting next month.

[58:48] » Okay. Let's

[58:50] » we chat about let's um is it okay with everybody here if we adjourn the work

[58:56] session and figure out >> how we want to have our next meeting so

[59:00] we can confer with staff about dates available and so forth and we can

[59:04] present that at six o'clock. Is that okay with everybody here?

[59:06] » That's fine with me. >> Okay. Do I have a motion to adjourn the

[59:09] work session until 6 p.m. recess until 6 p.m.?

[59:13] » Yeah, I'm okay with making the motion to adjourn.

[59:15] » Okay. >> And and then come back at 6.

[59:17] » Mr. Lucas made a motion for recess until 6:00 p.m. Is there a second?

[59:21] » Yeah. >> Second by Mr. Hartman. All in favor say

[59:23] I. >> I.

[59:24] » I. Oppose. >> Okay. We'll take a recess until 6 PM.

[59:29] Thank you.

[59:32] » Okay. John and Nicole, could y'all come up here second talk?

[59:36] » No, it's because that referral group >> didn't have a it all done in the time we

[59:42] had. So, >> we can we can talk about time.

[59:46] I mean, I was okay with us coming in at 4 if that was possible. And you know, so

[59:51] it's the same day coming in a little >> on the desk outside.

[59:56] » Yeah. If it's run out

[1:00:01] there in the last

[1:00:12] » time. We would do our work session at 4 September,

[1:00:20] » right? So we could

[1:00:26] » Oh, you're saying we don't have a meeting at all.

[1:00:28] » So we could do five till then. >> Oh, you're saying

[1:00:32] » there's no six o'clock meeting is what you're saying. Okay. Yeah.

[1:00:36] » Come at five and then we could stay as long as we need to to work through this.

[1:00:42] That would work better for you. >> That would work better for me. Um just

[1:00:45] because I have to >> on what days?

[1:00:47] » U same day. >> Same day as our meeting would have been.

[1:00:50] But what they're saying is there's no >> nothing no applications for next month.

[1:00:54] So we don't have a six o'clock meeting. We went

[1:01:09] you all.

[1:07:43] Good evening everyone. Thank you for attending the August 10th, 2026 planning

[1:07:49] commission meeting. We will now reconvene from the 5:00 PM field review

[1:07:53] and work session. Sorry, that was such a short break. Please make sure all cell

[1:07:58] phones and communication devices are on the silent mode. The full package is

[1:08:03] posted on the county website for review. On the bottovva.gov

[1:08:09] homepage, click on agendas and minutes. Scroll down to the planning commission

[1:08:13] section and click on the August 10, 2026 planning commission information package.

[1:08:20] Before we begin, I'll introduce members and explain our procedures. On my far

[1:08:24] left, Mr. Mark Tyson representing the Buchanan District. Mr. Tim Lucas

[1:08:29] representing the Valley District. On my right, Mr. Steve Hartman

[1:08:33] representing the Amsterdam district. The Blue Ridge District seat is vacant at

[1:08:39] this moment. Next is Mr. uh Mike Lockabe, County

[1:08:44] Attorney on my table to the right. Miss Nicole Pendleton, director of community

[1:08:49] development is next to him in the front row. Mr. John McCoy.

[1:08:54] Um, Mr. Matt Lindseay, both planners. Mr. Brandon Nicely, the exeicio member

[1:09:01] representing the Fincastle District. I am Elizabeth Le. I represent the

[1:09:05] Fincastle District. To expedite business, the planning

[1:09:09] commission has established the following procedures. Staff will present an agenda

[1:09:13] item and information to the planning commission. I will then ask the

[1:09:17] applicant or their representative to come forward for their presentation.

[1:09:21] There may be questions and comments from the planning commission to the applicant

[1:09:24] or staff and afterwards public comments will be heard. Anyone interested in

[1:09:30] addressing the planning commission must complete a request to speak form and

[1:09:34] give it to staff before the meeting begins. Forms are located with the

[1:09:37] agendas and on the planning staff's table. When your name is called, please

[1:09:42] go to a microphone or podium. Present your name and voting district before

[1:09:48] making your comments. Each person will have one opportunity to speak per public

[1:09:53] hearing on this agenda. If you have a question, please direct it to the

[1:09:57] commission who will in turn ask the applicant as necessary. Debate between a

[1:10:02] recognized speaker and the audience is not allowed.

[1:10:06] All comments must pertain to a public hearing on the agenda and directed to

[1:10:10] planning commission members. Comments made to or from the audience are not

[1:10:14] permitted. A time limit of three minutes per speaker will be observed. The

[1:10:20] planning commission welcomes and appreciates public participation and we

[1:10:23] appreciate all of you guys here tonight. It's a nice turnout. Hearing from our

[1:10:28] residents helps us better understand the community's perspectives and concerns.

[1:10:33] During the public comment period, citizens are invited to share their

[1:10:36] views. Comments will be included in the public record and considered as part of

[1:10:40] our review process to ensure everyone has a fair opportunity to speak and the

[1:10:45] meeting can proceed efficiently. The commission will listen respectively but

[1:10:49] will not engage in debate or respond to questions during the public comment

[1:10:53] period. Repeated comments or comments that are unrelated to the facility

[1:10:58] request will not be allowed. Under Virginia law, the planning commission's

[1:11:02] role is to review land use matters and make recommendations to the board of

[1:11:06] supervisors. In doing so, the commission is expected to evaluate proposals based

[1:11:11] on the county's adopted comprehensive plan, applicable county ordinances, and

[1:11:16] sound land use planning principles. Our responsibility is to consider how each

[1:11:21] proposal fits within those adopted policies and regulations.

[1:11:25] While individual comments may not receive an immediate response during the

[1:11:28] meeting, they are an important part of public record and help inform our

[1:11:32] decision, discussion, and recommendations to the board of

[1:11:35] supervisors. After public comments, we may bring the

[1:11:39] applicant or their representative back to answer any questions. The public

[1:11:43] hearing will then be closed and we will discuss the matter amongst ourselves and

[1:11:47] vote on that particular item. The planning commission will make a

[1:11:50] recommendation to the board of supervisors who will make the final

[1:11:53] decision on reasonzoning, change of conditions, text amendments, and special

[1:11:58] exception permit request. We thank you for participating and helping us conduct

[1:12:03] a respectful and productive meeting this evening. The board of supervisors will

[1:12:07] hear the request on Tuesday, August Help

[1:12:14] me out. >> Uh,

[1:12:16] » this is August >> 25 on the 20 August 25th at 6 PM here at

[1:12:21] the Bodat County Administration Center. The planning commission will meet at the

[1:12:26] Bitak County Administration Center on Monday, September 14th at 5:00 p.m. for

[1:12:32] a work session. There will be no field review or public hearings that evening.

[1:12:39] Okay, we will now move into our agenda. Um,

[1:12:43] the first item is actually to announce. >> Madam Chair, I do have an issue that I

[1:12:47] need to bring forward. Um, would you display this please? It's the

[1:12:53] very first file. Excuse me. Very second file

[1:12:57] » is Can you tell me what it's pertaining to, Mr. Fen, so I can move?

[1:13:00] » Yes. It it's it has to do with the fact that I feel a

[1:13:06] a an an unfortunate degree and a significant

[1:13:11] degree of fear. >> Hey, can I can I pause one moment,

[1:13:14] please? Mr. Lockby, do we need a vote to amend the agenda or how do I handle

[1:13:17] this? >> I think, Madam Chair, that you would

[1:13:20] have a vote to amend the agenda in order to uh deal with a potential other agenda

[1:13:26] item. >> Okay, Mr. Tyson, would you like to make

[1:13:29] a motion to add an an additional agenda item under administrative business?

[1:13:32] » I would, please. Um, >> motion received. Is there a second? A

[1:13:37] second. >> Second by Mr. Hartman. All in favor say

[1:13:39] I. >> I.

[1:13:41] » Opposed. Thank you. Okay. I would I would if I can put this under item D,

[1:13:47] please. >> Good.

[1:13:48] » So, let me finish the agenda while you load the

[1:13:51] » Sorry. Motion and second. >> Second by Mr. Hartman. Motion by Mr.

[1:13:55] Tyson. Unanimous approval. Sorry, I'll be better about announcing.

[1:14:00] » No, that's [clears throat] okay. Um, so our first administrative item is just to

[1:14:04] remind everyone about the meeting on September 14th here at 5:00 p.m. for a

[1:14:10] work session only. The second item on the agenda is notification that during

[1:14:15] the work session by consensus the planning commission agreed to move the

[1:14:19] date of the October meeting due to a holiday on Monday. The meeting will now

[1:14:25] be on October 13th, same time and place. Our third administrative item is we need

[1:14:31] to elect a vice chair. As many people are aware, Mr. Foster has resigned after

[1:14:37] almost two decades of service to the planning commission. And we just want to

[1:14:41] take a moment to say thank you, Mr. Foster, for your dedication to the

[1:14:45] planning commission and to the citizens of Bart County. But you have left a big

[1:14:49] seat to be filled. Um the Blue Ridge District seat has not yet been

[1:14:53] reappointed by the board of supervisors. In the interim, we do need to elect a

[1:14:58] vice chairman. And I would like to elect Mr. Tim Lucas, who is also a longtime

[1:15:03] member of the planning commission. >> I'll second that.

[1:15:06] » Seconded by Mr. Hartman. All in favor say I.

[1:15:09] » I. Opposed. >> Thank you. Vote carries unanimously.

[1:15:14] Now, Mr. Tyson has the floor with an additional administrative other business

[1:15:19] item. >> Yes. Could you please display the file,

[1:15:23] the second file, please?

[1:15:31] All right.

[1:15:34] I don't believe that being uh a commission member, one should feel

[1:15:39] retaliation. And I believe that um um there is an

[1:15:46] amount of retaliation and harm that's coming my way because of the passion uh

[1:15:52] that I have applied to um serving as a planning commission meeting. Uh this was

[1:16:00] this was provided by a supervisor regarding this issue and let me read it.

[1:16:06] It says, "What I do encounter is widespread fear that taking a position

[1:16:11] contrary to the administration and our board of supervisors will result in

[1:16:16] retaliation." What I'm feeling actually, people have shared with me that they are

[1:16:22] unwilling to run for office for fear of harm to their business interests or even

[1:16:27] to publicly weigh in on issues, perception or reality. This strikes me

[1:16:33] as a problem. What is it that we need to do to assure

[1:16:37] the public that no harm will come to them for exercising their rights? Um, I

[1:16:42] wrote a fairly lengthy um um paper that I submitted, a letter that

[1:16:50] I submitted to Mr. Lockabe on the matter. Uh, I got a word salad response.

[1:16:56] Um, and um, there's nothing really can be done except the fact that

[1:17:03] I shouldn't sit here and be concerned this way, but I am. I mean, this this

[1:17:09] county put a police officer behind me to arrest me, potentially arrest me last

[1:17:15] meeting. That's uncalled for. That's unnecessary.

[1:17:20] I mean, what in the world? What in the world? People were hurt.

[1:17:26] People heard the call to the sheriff to send a deputy to arrest me.

[1:17:34] What's going on? We We had heated discussion, but at the

[1:17:40] end we were fine. Nobody was upset. We're supposed to be passionate about

[1:17:45] issues that affect our county. And if we can't,

[1:17:52] then what are we doing here?

[1:17:57] I mean, is this is this board irrelevant or is it relevant? And if it's relevant,

[1:18:03] we ought to be able to serve you. You know, just being a commissioner,

[1:18:09] it's hard. If you're really going to apply

[1:18:12] yourself, you don't get paid anything. Some people

[1:18:17] think we're paid for this. We're not paid anything except a stipen that

[1:18:21] doesn't cover even even come close to covering the cost.

[1:18:27] That's not a complaint. That's a fact. Okay. We don't become a commissioner to

[1:18:33] for for financial benefit and and and then not only to put

[1:18:38] yourself out and serve and the amount of time that it takes is amazing and then

[1:18:43] to be concerned about retaliation on top of all of that

[1:18:48] and other people are afraid to run for office because of retaliation.

[1:18:53] You know, I'm banned from having direct communications with the planning

[1:18:56] department. That still stands to this very day. Okay. And that's not the first

[1:19:01] time I was banned in this county. This county allowed something that was so

[1:19:07] egregious. And when I took issue, you know what the county did? The county

[1:19:11] banned me from having any communications with

[1:19:15] any supervisor, including my own supervisor, unbeknownst to me.

[1:19:22] That's what that that that's how it started here. That was decade ago. And

[1:19:27] now I'm sitting here as a planning commissioner and I'm and I'm concerned

[1:19:31] for retaliation.

[1:19:37] Just needed to express that. Just outrageous.

[1:19:43] Thank you for giving me the opportunity to voice that.

[1:19:47] » Thank you, Mr. Tyson. I don't know that I can resolve that

[1:19:52] problem, but I I I am sorry that you feel that way.

[1:19:58] » I'm sorry. I feel that way, too.

[1:20:05] » Um, is is are did you need this? >> No, that's Thank you.

[1:20:11] » We can help you in any way, Mark. I don't know what we can do to help on

[1:20:15] that, but we're here. >> I'm sorry. We're here to help you if

[1:20:18] anything can if we can help you. >> Well, you know, basically what the

[1:20:26] county did is they defined that there's a line. If I cross this line, this

[1:20:31] arbitrary line, okay, I could be arrested, but I don't know what that

[1:20:35] line is. I don't know what that line is. But if I

[1:20:40] cross it, you're going to arrest me. Like there's this sword hanging over my

[1:20:45] head now. Okay. But not to let that sword fall. Okay. The only way is to

[1:20:52] resign or just sit off in the side. Be quiet. Okay. Don't

[1:20:58] is that what really come is that is that what the intented the design is

[1:21:04] you the last board of supervisors meeting?

[1:21:09] I you know you leave people's children

[1:21:13] alone. You leave people's spouses alone. My wife, they tried to in ins snare my

[1:21:21] wife last board of supervisors meeting. How dare you? How dare this county do

[1:21:26] that?

[1:21:33] » I don't think it's fair for Mr. to have to answer, but maybe Mr. Tyson, Mr. for

[1:21:40] lockab I'm willing to I don't know if

[1:21:45] » pretty uncomfortable isn't it everybody's sitting here really

[1:21:48] uncomfortable I I've been on the planning commission

[1:21:52] for a long time I've never felt those kind of fears I have reached my hand out

[1:21:56] to you on multiple occasions to make sure that we were working together on

[1:22:00] all issues related to planning commission so

[1:22:03] » sorry if you've gotten that from me has not been from anybody on this board

[1:22:06] » no >> okay

[1:22:07] » not from anybody on this board. I wish you the best of luck of resolving that

[1:22:12] for sure. >> Thank you for bringing it up, Mr. Tyson,

[1:22:16] and I think we'll work on that offline. >> Thank you. I'm sorry, Mark. Um, we'll

[1:22:23] have a public hearing. First of all, now um on the Virginia Water Authority

[1:22:27] request, Mr. McCoy, will you be presenting that to us?

[1:22:31] » Yes, ma'am. >> May I just clarify that is not a public

[1:22:34] hearing. I believe you all closed the public hearing. So the only intent would

[1:22:37] be action at this time. >> Okay.

[1:22:39] » That's right. >> All right.

[1:22:43] » Thank you, Miss Pent. So, um,

[1:22:48] » can you double check the agenda for me? I think it may have been advertised as a

[1:22:52] public hearing because we do have comment. We do have some comments on

[1:22:55] that. >> I think you can re you can reopen the

[1:22:57] public hearing. >> Public hearing.

[1:22:58] » So, just need to reopen it before you presentation. Madam Chair, if I may,

[1:23:03] this this item of course came up before. Uh it was tabled at a prior planning

[1:23:07] commission hearing um without a date certain. I will not read the legal

[1:23:12] advertisement. I think we're all familiar with the project here and there

[1:23:15] have been no changes to it uh since the first time it was heard. For some

[1:23:19] background, at the regular session held on July 13th, the planning commission

[1:23:23] voted unanimously to table this public hearing item. Uh per county code, the

[1:23:27] planning commission must take action on all commission permits within 60 days of

[1:23:31] an application being deemed complete. Uh that's why this is back to you all this

[1:23:35] month as next month um you wouldn't have had the chance to make your decision. Um

[1:23:39] because failure to make a decision without an extension by the board of

[1:23:43] supervisors actually results in an automatic approval and that's the code

[1:23:46] section there before you to take a look at if you're interested. So, we wanted

[1:23:50] to make sure that you all have the, you know, the opportunity to say yes or no

[1:23:53] to this. Um, for some additional context, had a brief conversation with

[1:23:58] the water authority, one of the engineers that actually presented,

[1:24:01] Joseph Arthur, and there were some questions about that 12-in main. This is

[1:24:06] from their design standards for water systems. This is not something that I've

[1:24:10] got any sway or opinion about one way or another, but I highlighted that part

[1:24:15] because Joseph Arthur had mentioned that that was per uh de or um West Virginia

[1:24:20] water authority standards. This is in their design standards for water systems

[1:24:24] that was published in 2024. And that top line there says generally the minimum

[1:24:29] water man size is 12 in when located along a primary or other major roadway.

[1:24:34] So hopefully that um helps a little bit. Don't have to believe me, of course, but

[1:24:38] that is what's written in that document and that's what they used to design

[1:24:41] their systems. My my understanding, as I said, there are no fundamental

[1:24:45] changes to this application in any way. It's the same project that you all

[1:24:49] heard. Um, so the uh request here is to hold that public hearing and then take

[1:24:53] action to deny or approve this item. Um, if you do not do that, uh, automatic

[1:24:59] approval goes to the board of supervisors for the final decision. So,

[1:25:03] if you have any questions for me, I'm happy to answer them. Otherwise, I'd

[1:25:07] encourage you to open the public hearing, hear from the community, and

[1:25:09] then make your decision tonight. Any questions for me?

[1:25:13] » Mur questions.

[1:25:17] » Go ahead. >> Oh, I I do. This is in effect exactly

[1:25:21] what was presented before with some additional pages, but no no substantive

[1:25:26] changes except that today we received or I received an email, I guess everybody

[1:25:33] else did, um that from Mr. McCoy asking that this be approved, but also bringing

[1:25:41] in uh the fact that this will help a a problem of um

[1:25:52] second here.

[1:25:59] Is that correct? So my question is when was that known?

[1:26:07] Uh when did you all find out that there was a POS problem?

[1:26:11] » I in total honesty I don't know anything about a POS problem.

[1:26:16] » That was a letter from the water authority.

[1:26:18] » That's the letter from the water authority. But there they they raise it

[1:26:23] as a additional reason for consideration.

[1:26:28] My question is, h how come that this wasn't brought forward in the first last

[1:26:33] month when we looked at it? Um, and is it

[1:26:42] is it a deception or is it really true? And if it's really true, were the people

[1:26:47] provided notification that their water is contaminated or has that happened?

[1:26:54] Do you mind if I take I'm not entirely sure what the document is you're

[1:26:57] referring to to be totally honest with you. Oh,

[1:26:59] » I thought you sent it to us. It It was forwarded.

[1:27:02] » I sent it. It's the the letter that we got from Mike Makavoy.

[1:27:06] » Oh, okay. Yeah. I had I had not had a chance to read.

[1:27:08] » You want to look? >> Yeah, if you don't mind.

[1:27:15] » I mean, if if you if you could also put up this the next slide. It says uh

[1:27:20] » is that from your >> it's the one two three four the fifth

[1:27:23] one pos >> is that from your uh your materials

[1:27:29] » yes the flash drive >> absolutely

[1:27:36] » pfos combined >> yes please

[1:27:43] so the potential illnesses from this are liver disease cancer are I mean

[1:27:51] pretty nasty possibilities here and uh so how long was this condition

[1:27:59] allowed to exist?

[1:28:05] » Is that a question for me? Yeah, I mean it it it was introduced as something we

[1:28:10] ought to take in consideration for this, but it raises a totally different issue

[1:28:16] subject and that's we have POS and water systems and

[1:28:22] it appears that the people that are on that water system haven't been advised.

[1:28:28] » Mhm. >> That's pretty serious.

[1:28:30] » Sure. I This is the first time I've seen this. I could not give you the

[1:28:35] background as to when the testing was done or when anything happened with this

[1:28:38] particular issue to be totally honest with you.

[1:28:40] » Well, as I was preparing to be here today, I found that it was just emailed

[1:28:45] today. Is that correct? >> Yeah.

[1:28:47] » There have been some previous actions related to this request that went to the

[1:28:51] board. That's when the commission permit should have came to you all when they

[1:28:55] had an additional consideration. Um, it didn't happen. So, this was a cleanup

[1:28:59] item. And I think that may be why there wasn't a a tremendous amount of

[1:29:03] information provided. Um in in the event and I am happy to, you know, for the

[1:29:10] folks that are in the room, the the letter from Mr. Makavoy asks for um the

[1:29:15] planning commission to approve the request. It notes it's a $ 1.46 million

[1:29:20] extension um from their existing water

[1:29:24] distribution network to the Dita Hills neighborhood. it that system

[1:29:30] is on what was once the county wells. The water authority took over that

[1:29:35] system and is looking to connect the water

[1:29:40] service from here to there in order to improve just the conditions that you are

[1:29:46] referring to, Mr. Tyson. It talks about resolving long-standing pressure

[1:29:50] concerns, improving fire protection, and allowing the authority uh to take a well

[1:29:55] that it's again currently supplying the residents out of service. And then it

[1:29:59] goes on to say testing of the well to test be taken out of service has

[1:30:06] demonstrated positive results for two uh PFAS compounds and those test results

[1:30:12] are can be reviewed. Now, I I can't speak for this community, but I know

[1:30:16] that we get annual reports um for those folks who are on water authority water,

[1:30:22] at least annually, um in the mail about any findings that they have. I can't

[1:30:26] speak for this neighborhood. Says, um I certainly understand the concerns around

[1:30:30] this extension as it relates to the planned Google data center project.

[1:30:34] However, the extension is northwest away from the data center property and will

[1:30:38] end in a neighborhood that has very limited water supply capability already.

[1:30:43] Um, in addition, the planning commission has the authority to deny future

[1:30:47] extensions from this water man if it so chooses. Um, I can assure the planning

[1:30:52] commission the main extension will be used for the purposes described in the

[1:30:55] agenda report. It will not be used to support the proposed data center. Again,

[1:30:59] this is from president of the Western Virginia Water Authority. Just thought

[1:31:02] it would be helpful for everybody to hear.

[1:31:05] » Right. And it it it was it was good to see that. Could

[1:31:10] you also put up uh the um

[1:31:21] where is it? Oh, the last one, the proposed pipeline

[1:31:26] chart. Yeah, there you go. So, so there there is the data center and that's

[1:31:31] where the the pipeline is going to be and it's absolutely not going to be used

[1:31:36] for the data center. um absolutely not going to be used for the

[1:31:42] data center. But I the question I had then and I still have now is that it's

[1:31:47] going to basically really help these 40 residents.

[1:31:53] Why do we need that level of of of of water flow? I think it was 6 million

[1:32:01] gallons a day to flow through there for 40 residents. Right.

[1:32:06] » It's just just semantics. It's 40. >> It's 40 plus homes.

[1:32:12] » I just want to make sure it's not like 40 40 people. It's 40 homes.

[1:32:16] » 40 homes. >> And I think that subdivision has

[1:32:19] allowable 40 or 50 more plots that could go in there.

[1:32:24] » Justification. >> Even doubling that, tripling that,

[1:32:27] quadrupling that, you wouldn't need 6 million gallons of water. Did we get

[1:32:31] confirmation from water authority that it was 6 million gallons a day? I think

[1:32:36] that was something somebody calculated in the audience. Was that

[1:32:39] » Yeah, I mean from what I recall from that meeting, somebody had done some

[1:32:42] quick math about how much 12 in can sustain flow flow rate wise. That's why

[1:32:48] uh Joseph Arthur, the engineer, had sent me that design manual that shows that

[1:32:53] this is typical for a uh waterline project on a um piece of rideway like

[1:32:59] this in the public rideway next to a roadway. I don't have any information

[1:33:03] fortunately or unfortunately for you all. I'm not an engineer, so I don't

[1:33:06] know the the uh calculus and the mathematics for that rate, but that's

[1:33:10] why he sent that to me and that's why I wanted to conclude it to you. Well,

[1:33:13] people have been reaching out to me and saying they don't they don't want this.

[1:33:17] They don't I'm saying why? And they're saying, 'Well, we don't want to tie into

[1:33:21] it, but if you approve it, we're going to be charged even though we don't tie

[1:33:26] into it. >> Is the applicant here tonight? Because

[1:33:29] that question was asked last month and I thought they said you're not required.

[1:33:32] » No, what was answered is they didn't have to tie into it,

[1:33:36] » right? >> What they didn't tell them was that even

[1:33:38] if they didn't tie into it, they'll be charged. I I can't speak to that. I'm

[1:33:43] not entirely sure how they would be charged for it to be honest with you,

[1:33:46] but they are not here tonight to answer that question.

[1:33:48] » So, they are existing already existing customers of the water authority.

[1:33:52] » Okay. >> What what happens if this doesn't go

[1:33:55] through? What do they what's their proposal if this

[1:33:59] » I don't have an answer for you unfortunately.

[1:34:01] » I mean, is it that critical to have it? Um, from as I understand it, there are

[1:34:07] some water flow issues in that community. Um, with just the existing

[1:34:10] facilities they have, I believe they have a single pump or water tower that

[1:34:14] serves about 40 homes and they do run into some significant issues with their

[1:34:18] water flow. Um, I've not been there to know how significant those issues are,

[1:34:24] but if this is not approved, that project can't go through and I think

[1:34:27] they I don't know if they'd improve the existing facility somehow there or if

[1:34:31] they're just kind of out of luck. So, they could improve what they have there.

[1:34:35] » I don't know that for certain entirely. I I don't know. As I said, I'm not an

[1:34:40] engineer, but I don't know if they can improve that existing facility to serve

[1:34:43] just those homes or if this is really the the actual complete and necessary

[1:34:48] solution. >> So, hopefully we'll hear from people

[1:34:50] tonight about this, what their plan. >> I think they're here for something.

[1:34:54] » Yeah. I I think one thing to point out about the water pressure, it's not

[1:34:57] necessarily um a quote unquote convenience of these people that live

[1:35:03] there, and I have heard from some people that live there that say, "Please don't

[1:35:06] penalize me because there's speculation that that this could affect Google. I

[1:35:12] would like to be able to use water in my own house." So,

[1:35:14] » so there are people that saying that, but from my personal opinion, you guys

[1:35:18] know a lot of times I always fall back on fire and EMS. There are no fire

[1:35:22] hydrants in this development. The water pressure will not support hydrants and

[1:35:28] this improvement adds for hydrants to better serve this community instead of

[1:35:32] trying to get tanker trucks in there in the event of a fire. And in addition to

[1:35:36] that, I know it's an insignificant relatively speaking,

[1:35:42] homeowners who have access to fire hydrants get big drops on their

[1:35:46] homeowners insurance because of fire protection. So, it's it's it's a lot to

[1:35:51] consider for for these people in this community. Just that's that's a

[1:35:56] pressure. Sorry, I rambled. That's another point about the pressure. So, it

[1:36:00] will support the hydrants that they're going to put in there for fire

[1:36:02] protection. >> Was there a mention that they're going

[1:36:04] to expand that neighborhood back further?

[1:36:08] » Not to my knowledge. I think what Dr. Level had mentioned earlier is that that

[1:36:12] community was platted back in the 70s. I believe they had about 52 lots from what

[1:36:17] I saw today that had been originally platted. Now, over time, there may have

[1:36:21] been some combination of lots or maybe some of those lots were not developable

[1:36:25] for one reason or another, but there's just north of about 40 homes in that

[1:36:29] community. I don't know if they could develop the other lots or not. I have

[1:36:33] not done that deep dive analysis to see, but the original plat had about 51 or 52

[1:36:38] home uh pieces of property there that could be developed. And keeping in mind,

[1:36:44] you know, part of our comprehensive plan is actually to try and eliminate some of

[1:36:49] these private well systems because they do oftentimes fail and try and get folks

[1:36:53] onto public water. So this wouldn't necessar I mean obviously if

[1:37:00] a data center goes in there, I'm sure they would probably use that line, but

[1:37:03] there they would have to come back and actually get approval to do that. So

[1:37:07] approving this section of it is not necessarily approving it for

[1:37:11] » right >> anything else. [clears throat]

[1:37:13] » Yeah. >> And it would help that community and if

[1:37:16] they have POS contaminants that just further emphasizes why you don't want a

[1:37:23] bunch of these well systems to not be improved.

[1:37:26] » Right. You're on.

[1:37:30] » Thank you. >> Absolutely.

[1:37:32] » Maybe open our reopen. >> Yeah. Maybe the public comments will

[1:37:36] will be very revealing on this subject. >> Any more comments for John before we

[1:37:40] open the public hearing? >> Do we need a motion to

[1:37:44] » Well, were you I don't think so. >> Okay.

[1:37:45] » Are sorry, were you finished with your presentation?

[1:37:48] » All right. >> Okay. Okay.

[1:37:50] » All right. I would now like to open the public hearing. I do have some people

[1:37:54] definitely I have some people signed up and I have a couple people I want to

[1:37:57] clarify. This is the right public hearing for you. First of all,

[1:38:01] definitely Mr. Ward Yes, sir. You can go to that microphone

[1:38:06] right beside you if you want. >> My name is Hannah Ward. I'm from the Fin

[1:38:12] Castle District. Regarding the water pipe that uh the Western Virginia Water

[1:38:18] Authority states is for the Downita Hills area. I'm not disputing that the

[1:38:22] Dita Hills residents may require infrastructure upgrades. My concern and

[1:38:27] the concern of the citizens here is that the Western Virginia Water Authority has

[1:38:32] been less than transparent with the citizens about our water supply as it

[1:38:38] relates to the Google data center. At the last planning commission meeting,

[1:38:44] the authority deflected questions about whether or not these infrastructure

[1:38:47] upgrades are to help Google satisfy its water demands.

[1:38:52] So in the interest of transparency I would like to read from the water

[1:38:56] authorities website specifically its core values. Core values are as follows.

[1:39:03] Stewardship, teamwork, accountability,

[1:39:08] integrity, respect and service.

[1:39:12] They define integrity integrity as and I quote do the right thing even if no one

[1:39:19] is looking. Well, the Rono Rambler had to take the

[1:39:23] authority to court to force the authority to release documents about

[1:39:27] Google's proposed water usage. Why is it a secret if everybody's supposed to be

[1:39:32] transparent? Just a few weeks ago, documents through

[1:39:36] the Freedom of Information Act revealed that Google and the authority had

[1:39:40] discussions about 10 to 11 million gallons of water a day,

[1:39:46] emails. And finally in May, our citizens paid

[1:39:52] money once again for another Freedom of Information

[1:39:56] document release and the authority has released only a small portion of what

[1:40:01] information has been requested. These have been paid for and the

[1:40:07] documents are overdue. We have paid for them and they have not been fully

[1:40:12] released yet. And this was in May.

[1:40:18] So we for good reason question the timing and potential use of the

[1:40:21] infrastructure upgrades in Dita Hills as it might relate to the Google's request

[1:40:27] for water. Finally, I wish to express a sentiment felt by everyone here. While

[1:40:34] we do not concede that this data center is a done deal, not by a long shot. We

[1:40:39] also want to make it clear that we don't wish to ever have to fight this fight

[1:40:45] again in this county. We would we would like whatever changes

[1:40:51] have to happen in our laws, regulations, policies, whatever the appropriate

[1:40:57] jargon might be. We want to start the discussions and ask that you start

[1:41:02] procedures needed to ensure no data center will ever again be considered in

[1:41:09] this county. We have learned that data centers worm

[1:41:13] their way into localities in various ways. changes in zoning types and

[1:41:18] designations, for example. There are all kinds of ways, most of

[1:41:23] which average citizens would not even see as the first step for courting a

[1:41:28] data center. Legally, legal speak aside, we want

[1:41:35] all those possibilities covered. Ultimately the issue is this consent of

[1:41:43] the governed. Consent of the governed. We do not

[1:41:48] consent to data centers and we do not consent to this data center.

[1:42:00] Um Mr. Go and

[1:42:05] while Mr. Mr. Goat is making his way to the microphone. Is there a Mr. Whitley

[1:42:11] in the audience? Mr. Whitley. >> Okay. Thank you. And

[1:42:19] Miss Smith, did you I'm kind of confused about this one. Did you want to talk

[1:42:23] about D Hills or Okay. So, you'll be up after.

[1:42:30] » If you want to go ahead and make your way to the mic, that's fine.

[1:42:40] You ready for me to start? >> Yes, sir. If you would

[1:42:43] » your name in your district, please. >> My name is Danny Go. I live in the

[1:42:47] Valley District. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak here

[1:42:51] tonight. When we talk about this pipe,

[1:42:58] we hear the same arguments about Downita Hills that were heard for

[1:43:03] Highland Manor when a 16-in pipe was put in or is in the process still of being

[1:43:10] installed from Carvin's Cove to the uh pumping station at Raider Funeral Home.

[1:43:19] The excuse that's been given tonight, the reason it's 12 in is because it's

[1:43:24] along a major road. Well, in just a few minutes, I had to

[1:43:30] look. You've got 8 in pipe along Cloverdale Road, which is a bigger road.

[1:43:38] You've got 10in pipe along 460, which is a bigger road.

[1:43:45] what what you're being fed is a line of bull.

[1:43:51] You're not getting the truth. And the information that you're getting

[1:43:57] is screaming. You are not getting the truth.

[1:44:04] I don't know what the average household takes per month. Let's say it's 7,000

[1:44:09] gallons per month. Multiply that by 80 to double the number

[1:44:14] of houses in Dina Hills. How many millions of gallons a day is

[1:44:19] that? Not a million. Not even a million. And

[1:44:24] the pipe you're installing is capable at design of doing

[1:44:31] 5,000 or 5 million gallons a day.

[1:44:38] This is knowable to you. You may not be an engineer, but you can

[1:44:43] ask people. No one in the planning department may be an engineer, but this

[1:44:49] information is available. And your only source isn't the Western Virginia Water

[1:44:54] Authority. They've sat before the board of

[1:44:58] supervisors and in front of you and told you they are not going to tell you the

[1:45:02] truth. the young man. I call him young.

[1:45:07] Everybody looks like a teenager to me these days,

[1:45:11] but he continuously said it's not uh he can't speak to whether or not it's

[1:45:17] related to Google. It was almost as if he had become disconnected from the

[1:45:22] mothership or something. He lost touch with reality.

[1:45:27] They're telling you they are not going to tell you the truth.

[1:45:31] And the board of supervisors does not want you to get to the truth. They

[1:45:36] demonstrated that in the last meeting. They're afraid you're going to get to

[1:45:41] the truth because they know the truth. The truth's available. And I ask you,

[1:45:48] you're the only body here. You're the only body in Bodatai County that has

[1:45:53] requested truthful information. Don't accept less than the truth. Thank

[1:46:00] you.

[1:46:04] Um, Miss Smith name. >> My name is Melissa Smith and I'm here to

[1:46:10] represent myself, my father, and my brother who all live on a farm in

[1:46:14] Amsterdam. I've brought this problem up to Mr. Snyder before, but let me please

[1:46:20] be the dot that connects it clearly. There's no oversight. The planning

[1:46:24] commission once okayaided the water authority to do a capital improvement

[1:46:30] project to bring water to Greenfield. That pipe came through our land and Mr.

[1:46:37] Burgess, who was the town manager at the time, had a handshake agreement, which

[1:46:41] used to be worth something in this county and with the state of Virginia to

[1:46:46] promise my father that the road that they were going to dig up would be

[1:46:50] better than it was before because it was double paved and there was not a

[1:46:54] culde-sac even though years ago Bodat County said we're going to put a

[1:46:58] culde-sac in down there at that little low water bridge. So, it's not a

[1:47:01] flooding hazard and it's a flooding hazard. And all my life, I've either had

[1:47:05] to park my car outside the bridge or walk across the train tracks. That's not

[1:47:09] really allowed and not really safe, but I do it anyway. And they didn't do it.

[1:47:15] Western Virginia Water Authority tells whatever contractors to tell whatever

[1:47:18] people and they get by county manager. And Mr. Burgess is now retired. And now

[1:47:23] the new manager solved the problem by coming after I complained to Mr. Snider

[1:47:28] and putting up a Nstate maintenance sign where my mailboxes sit. That's at the

[1:47:34] corner of Ivy Lane and the first road. And that is my neighborhood. That's my

[1:47:40] life. And since that happened many years ago, Mr. Tyson's exactly right because

[1:47:45] my dad, who people in this audience know me all my life, has been targeted by

[1:47:50] inspectors who we are grandfathered in and my dad put French drainage ditches.

[1:47:55] And my dad's a builder and I might as well be an architect and knew what he

[1:47:58] was doing. And he's been harassed by junior little inspectors who come and

[1:48:03] say, "Oh, Mr. Smith, you're going to have to spend $15,000 on this and

[1:48:07] $20,000 on this. We spent $5,000 last year to put the pipe farther down into

[1:48:12] our well because the aquafer is already dropping.

[1:48:17] And if it drops or gets intoxicated with PAS from whatever is going to happen

[1:48:23] because we're not being told the truth and Mr. Burgess has egg on his face and

[1:48:27] the new manager kept her promises by putting up a sign and now I have to go

[1:48:33] and watch my dad at his age infirm and I'm a disabled widow and we're having to

[1:48:39] repair my my dad modified the bridge so it wouldn't flood as bad. So it was

[1:48:44] shoddily installed. They didn't keep their promise to fix the road. And we

[1:48:49] are straight idiots if we allow them in any other place without the hearings

[1:48:55] that were supposed to have before the decisions are made.

[1:49:03] » Have anyone else? >> And that's my dad, John Smith. Y'all

[1:49:05] know who he is. >> I don't have anyone else signed up to

[1:49:08] speak in this public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that would like

[1:49:12] to fill out a form and speak? Is there not a single person here that wants this

[1:49:17] pipeline and wants to speak for the pipeline?

[1:49:22] » Seeing no one willing to speak, I'm closing the public hearing. The planning

[1:49:26] commission will now discuss this amongst ourselves. Mr. Hartman, would you like

[1:49:30] to start since it's your district?

[1:49:35] » Well, I think there's some good things in there. They said that they couldn't

[1:49:39] add. Uh if a Google wanted to, they would have to come back

[1:49:44] and get approval from us to do that. Um the fire hydrants could be a good thing

[1:49:52] that for safety,

[1:49:57] I think those things they might not need as big a pipe, but

[1:50:03] there is some good and good in it. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.

[1:50:10] I mean, for me, it oftenimes rolls back to trying to get folks off of the wells.

[1:50:15] Um, so, you know, I'm I'm surprised no one's here from um the subdivision to

[1:50:22] speak about water pressure. I'm also kind of surprised that no one's here

[1:50:25] from Virginia Water Authority. I'd actually be curious. I can't tell. Can

[1:50:30] anybody tell what size pipe they're connecting to? Because if it's a smaller

[1:50:34] pipe that they're connecting to, Do do we have that

[1:50:40] information? I mean, standards change over time. So,

[1:50:46] you know, some of the older pipelines, if it was 6 in or 8 in and now they're

[1:50:51] going to something different, I can understand that somewhat, but

[1:50:56] to me, they're saying that this is what the standard is for them now. But, you

[1:51:00] know, certainly it looks like it would provide an awful lot of water. And you

[1:51:06] know, the biggest thing that we have is that this specific one is would only be

[1:51:12] approval for the neighborhood. It's not connecting. I mean, obviously, I'm not

[1:51:17] naive enough to think that it couldn't connect to something else, but to get

[1:51:20] approval to do that, they have to come back for that. Um, and so

[1:51:25] » does it say what size

[1:51:30] » that's what it's connecting to? 16 inch and 20 inch lines. Okay. So, they

[1:51:35] already have the large lines there. >> Mr. Tyson,

[1:51:42] » um I'm surprised no one is here to to ask for this. Um

[1:51:50] let me let me suggest this. I've brought up repeatedly that there's

[1:51:56] a deficiency and and what I mean by that is that we put all this effort in. We

[1:52:03] give all this consideration to something and none of that translates to anything

[1:52:08] that goes before the board of supervisors. It's just lost here. It

[1:52:13] doesn't if it gets incorporated into the minutes, those minutes may be drafted

[1:52:18] months later well after the board of supervisors meeting. Okay?

[1:52:24] So everything we're saying, all the issues we're going to raise dies right

[1:52:30] now. Okay? and the board of supervisors will get this packet without any of that

[1:52:36] input at all. And um and and that's a deficiency that

[1:52:42] should get fixed quite frankly. But but if we if we approve this, we're not the

[1:52:48] ultimate authority. The board of supervisors will say, "Oh, it's it ought

[1:52:53] to be approved, too." But if we don't approve it, they will give it much more

[1:52:58] scrutiny since they're the ultimate authority.

[1:53:02] Um they'll look at it harder uh because they won't have the benefit

[1:53:07] of some of our considerations. So and and yet we're sort of in a

[1:53:13] position if we vote against something where people are

[1:53:18] are living with water that's contaminated and we don't approve this,

[1:53:23] that's terrible. So my suggestion is let's vote no

[1:53:31] and ask the board of supervisors to give it the kind of consideration that it

[1:53:35] really needs to get because they're the ultimate authority. If we vote yes, they

[1:53:42] may not give it the kind of final consideration that's really necessary.

[1:53:48] » I'd like to make some comments before we move to a motion. Um,

[1:53:53] I think that number one, Mr. Lucas has mentioned that

[1:53:58] our comprehensive plan does address getting people off of community wells

[1:54:03] onto a water service when we can do that. This is not this conversation has

[1:54:08] been going on for years, way before there was a thought of Google. The

[1:54:12] people of that live in that part of the county deserve to be served just like

[1:54:16] everybody else deserves to be served. And I do not think that it's fair to

[1:54:22] allow a fear of whether Google may or may not hook up to this water system to

[1:54:29] prevent those citizens from safe water that they deserve, much less water

[1:54:33] pressure to support home use, personal use, and fire suppression. And there are

[1:54:40] people in this audience that very well stated um no pun intended on a well. you

[1:54:48] you all of many many people in this audience feel like you're going to be

[1:54:51] able to stop Google and it's not going to happen. I'm not willing to make these

[1:54:55] people continue to suffer in this subdivision when, as you say, you may be

[1:55:00] able to stop Google. That's my my personal opinion. I think these people

[1:55:04] should be allowed to have safe water um with a line that has been playing for

[1:55:08] some time. Any other comments before we entertain a

[1:55:12] motion? Well, we're accepting one assumption and that is that the people

[1:55:18] need this and it's going to be good for them, but we don't want to accept the

[1:55:21] other assumption that really the people don't want it. It's really

[1:55:27] not going to help them that much. Um, I'm going by facts. The fact is that we

[1:55:33] have a water health report that is not good. I'm not sure I would necessarily

[1:55:38] say that it's contaminated water because I think that's a stretch and I haven't

[1:55:42] interpreted the water results. But we definitely see that there's an issue of

[1:55:46] contamination. That's a fact. That's not an assumption. It's a fact that these

[1:55:50] people do not have fire suppression capability. They must be dependent on

[1:55:54] bringing in tanker trucks. That affects their life, their property, and their

[1:55:59] bottom line homeowners insurance. That's fact. That's not an assumption. Well,

[1:56:04] » a split a split vote could very easily send the same message.

[1:56:08] » It could. Yes. Uh well, let me let me suggest something though. Um

[1:56:13] » you can make a motion however you wish, Mr. Tyson.

[1:56:16] » No, no, I'm not ready for a motion. Just just for additional consideration.

[1:56:20] » Um

[1:56:23] and what I was going to say, >> sorry.

[1:56:27] » Gone. Um, just give me a moment to regroup here.

[1:56:32] Um,

[1:56:36] oh, what was I what I was going to say is common sense, okay? If if we were

[1:56:42] having a water problem, if any of us had a water problem at our home with

[1:56:47] contamination, water, bad pressure, and all that, and there was a motion before

[1:56:54] this committee or the board of supervisors

[1:56:57] I can't imagine we wouldn't be turning out asking for it to happen. There's

[1:57:03] nobody here asking for it. I don't understand it.

[1:57:08] It's just common sense that if they're so adversely affected and they're going

[1:57:12] to be so they're going to benefit so significantly by this that at least one

[1:57:19] person would show up and say, "Hey, please do this." I think it goes back to

[1:57:24] your comment on assumptions, which is valid in this case. My assumption would

[1:57:29] be that people believe it's going to be addressed appropriately and taken care

[1:57:33] of. I've gotten some phone calls to say to support it. Just like I've gotten

[1:57:37] phone calls to say not to support other things, but the people don't show up to

[1:57:41] speak. They think they've contacted, I guess,

[1:57:46] a member to represent them. I don't know. But I mean, your point's valid. I

[1:57:50] think you can assume people are too busy to come or people don't care or people

[1:57:55] think that they're going to be taken care of. I don't know

[1:57:58] » if if if the vote is split, does it still go before the board of supervisors

[1:58:03] or does it stall here? >> We must vote tonight. So, we must vote

[1:58:07] to approve or deny tonight and that will go that recommendation will then go to

[1:58:12] the supervisors. >> It's a good question uh for the

[1:58:16] attorney. If it is a 50/50 vote, >> what does what does that do?

[1:58:21] » I like >> we send a message to the board with a

[1:58:25] 50/50 vote. >> A 5050 vote. I mean, it sends a message,

[1:58:29] I suppose, but it would be there a 50/50 vote is nothing. It's whatever motion

[1:58:36] was made fails. So, this is going to go to the board of supervisors either with

[1:58:41] a recommendation of yes or no. And if you do nothing, then it will go with the

[1:58:46] recommendation of yes. You would have to vote affirmatively to

[1:58:50] have a recommendation of no. Now, admittedly, a two to two would be

[1:58:54] reflected in the minutes, and I'm sure that Mr. Nicely would communicate that

[1:58:58] to everybody, but >> I'm sorry, what minutes?

[1:59:03] » These minutes will not occur until well after the board of supervisors meeting.

[1:59:09] » Okay. >> There's a summary. There's a minute

[1:59:13] summary that goes to the board of supervisors with the package.

[1:59:18] » I'm not >> There is no minutes summary that goes to

[1:59:21] the board. >> We do. We send a page of information

[1:59:24] along with your recommendation and and some other um pertinent information with

[1:59:30] every decision that goes to the board. >> Four minutes.

[1:59:34] » And for the matter of record, we have exopicio board of supervisor member here

[1:59:38] who conveys that information. And I'm glancing around and we have two board of

[1:59:42] supervisors in the audience tonight. Thank you guys for adding an extra

[1:59:45] meeting to your life. So I think three I'm sorry. So I think the

[1:59:52] So I think the information does get relayed

[1:59:56] » to your concern, Mr. Tyson. I think the information gets relayed.

[1:59:58] » Well, I I was told that I was told that one a supervisor that always attended

[2:00:05] attended because that's the only way he knew what was going on here. Well,

[2:00:09] » if he didn't attend, he would had no idea.

[2:00:12] » Well, maybe we should not debate, put words in people's mouths. Maybe we can

[2:00:15] stick to this to this topic. I don't want to put words into somebody else's

[2:00:20] mouth about who's here and who's not. >> Mr. Hartman's district.

[2:00:25] » Not sure if he's ready to make any motions or not, but

[2:00:28] » I'm make sure no one else has any other questions.

[2:00:31] » Did you have questions on the actual t on the actual application, Mr. Tyson?

[2:00:36] » No. Is it is it is it protocol to for the district?

[2:00:42] » Yes, sir. >> Commissioner to make the motion. I'm

[2:00:44] sorry. >> Oh,

[2:00:45] » that's nice. Okay. >> I move to make a motion to send a

[2:00:50] commission permit to the board of supervisors with a recommendation of

[2:00:53] approval. This recommendation is based on the requirements of section 25-5811

[2:00:59] public zoning ordinance been satisfied and protocol should serve the public

[2:01:04] necessity convenience and general welfare and good standing zoning

[2:01:07] practice. >> Thank you. There's been a motion for

[2:01:11] approval by Mr. Hartman. Is there a second?

[2:01:15] » We can second that motion. >> Second by Mr. Lucas. All in favor say I.

[2:01:20] I. Opposed. >> Opposed.

[2:01:24] Okay, let's do roll call because I'm Mr.

[2:01:28] Hartman. Uh, >> Mr. Hartman signifies approval.

[2:01:33] Myself, a signify approval. Mr. Lucas, >> a nay.

[2:01:38] » Okay, Mr. Tyson, >> nay.

[2:01:40] » Okay. So, we do have a split vote. Two in favor, two opposed.

[2:01:46] That's the motion. So, it fails on our part. It will be forwarded to the board

[2:01:50] of supervisors of recommendation of approval

[2:01:55] because of the bylaw the way the bylaws are written.

[2:02:00] » Okay. So now we will need to move to the second.

[2:02:03] » Madam chair, I do need to clarify that's not a matter of the bylaws. That's a

[2:02:06] matter of state law. >> Oh, I'm sorry.

[2:02:08] » So the general assembly filed that one up, not y'all.

[2:02:11] » Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lockabe. Sorrybody. Thanks for the clarification.

[2:02:16] um like to open the second public hearing at this time regarding a text

[2:02:21] amendment to solar. Mr. McCoy, would you start your presentation?

[2:02:25] » You want to open the public hearing? Those are the words you just used. Or

[2:02:28] would you rather just move to the next agenda item?

[2:02:31] » That is the next agenda item. >> You you said I'd like to I think you

[2:02:35] said I'd like to public hearing. It's your meeting, but

[2:02:39] » correct. we will have the presentation from you because there are a lot of more

[2:02:42] people in the audience that were not at the work session that didn't hear

[2:02:46] » the conversation we had at the work session. So, we're going to have staff

[2:02:49] present so everybody's on the same page before you all hear what we went through

[2:02:53] at the work session. >> Certainly. Um thank you, Madam Chair,

[2:02:56] members of the commission. So, as we discussed at the work session at 5:00,

[2:03:01] um this item is before you is just a matter of necessity. Um, so the board of

[2:03:06] supervisors had authorized you all and staff to work on amendments to the solar

[2:03:12] ordinance of Bodata County and the comprehensive plan. The issue at stake

[2:03:16] here is that the authorization was for 100 days, which is also in line with

[2:03:21] county code. Typically, you only have 100 days to work on a zoning ordinance

[2:03:25] update. And so today is the only time we can meet that 100 days. Otherwise, we'd

[2:03:31] be well into September and we would miss that deadline. So, it's here before you

[2:03:36] uh just the zoning ordinance, not the comprehensive plan because the

[2:03:39] comprehensive plan was given a much later date of being done November 30th,

[2:03:43] which makes sense because that is pretty complex as well. Um, so what we're doing

[2:03:47] today and what we kind of discussed at the work session is that staff is happy

[2:03:51] to present this information to you all. Um, and it's very rare that we make a

[2:03:55] recommendation to you all as we'd like for you all to make the decisions um

[2:03:58] that you feel is best without kind of that input from staff. But we feel it

[2:04:03] would be important for you all to make a recommendation of denial on these zoning

[2:04:07] ordinance updates. That way it gives you all more time to work through those and

[2:04:10] with that denial a request from the board to extend that timeline to work on

[2:04:14] the zoning ordinance update. So I'm happy to give the presentation of course

[2:04:19] I go over some of the highle details that we discussed at 5:00 p.m. but I

[2:04:23] wanted everybody in the the crowd as well to know that we have kind of talked

[2:04:26] about this and it seems like the path forward may be that but of course it is

[2:04:30] your decision to make. So, this summarizes what I just mentioned up here

[2:04:33] on the screen. Um, the additional piece of the background is that the Virginia

[2:04:38] General Assembly had adopted some amendments to state code that partially

[2:04:42] preempt our ability to um make decisions on solar facilities and where they go in

[2:04:46] the county. So, some of those changes that I'll get into today include some

[2:04:52] new definitions. So, they've added new definitions for a few items there.

[2:04:57] Agravtaics, battery energy storage facility, integrative photovoltaics, net

[2:05:02] metering provision and small portable generation device. And then some amended

[2:05:07] definitions were included as well which include solar energy equipment, solar

[2:05:12] energy facility minor, small and utility scale. So there were some changes with

[2:05:17] the definitions at the state level and these are all included to align with

[2:05:21] that to make sure that what we're including in our zoning ordinance does

[2:05:25] not conflict with what the state is saying that we have to do. Um we had

[2:05:29] communicated and of course contracted with a third party reviewer uh the

[2:05:32] Berkeley Group to review our current ordinance and our comprehensive plan and

[2:05:37] when we met with them we instructed them to provide the most stringent

[2:05:42] restrictions on these types of facilities. That's what we heard from

[2:05:45] you all at those public hearings. It's what we heard from the board and it's

[2:05:48] what we heard from the from the folks that attended the public hearing as

[2:05:51] well. So, we recognize that there are some concerns about solar facilities and

[2:05:55] where they can be cited in the county. And so, what we have done is asked them

[2:05:58] to provide the most stringent uh within what state code allows us to do

[2:06:02] provisions for citing solar facilities. So, some of those definitions that were

[2:06:08] amended of course uh was solar energy equipment. So, that adds battery storage

[2:06:12] to the definition. One of those big picture items from the state code that

[2:06:16] was changed was that battery storage is a buy accessory use to a solar facility.

[2:06:23] Um so that's something that we can't get out of. That's something that state code

[2:06:26] requires us to consider. The solar energy facility minor scale. We had a

[2:06:31] different sizing requirement for that. So that recategorizes that to less than

[2:06:35] 1 megawatt of production. Solar energy facility small scale recategorizes that

[2:06:40] to not exceeding 20 kilowatts. So much smaller. And then utility scale is

[2:06:44] anything greater than one megawatt. And it also clarifies some of the intent for

[2:06:48] power to serve off-site needs, which is something that came up with a potential

[2:06:53] solar facility being signed in the county that our code is a little gray as

[2:06:56] to whether it could only be for solar use on the site, energy needed by the

[2:07:01] site itself, or if it could be sold back to a utility.

[2:07:07] So, this is a use table and I know it is incredibly hard to see for the folks

[2:07:11] behind us, but it is a big use table and includes some of the changes for use

[2:07:16] districts and where solar facilities can be cited in the county. So, on the far

[2:07:19] left column you have all of our zoning districts. I think there's 19 of them

[2:07:23] and the other columns include where these facilities can be cited in the

[2:07:27] county. So, anything that's red is a change. Anything that's black is uh

[2:07:31] what's carried over from our current ordinance. the small portable solar

[2:07:35] generation device. Those are things that you as a homeowner can plug in and um

[2:07:41] use the power for your own home. As my understanding, we're one of maybe two

[2:07:45] states in the US that permit this type of um tool to be used in your home. And

[2:07:52] those are all the permitted uses. You'll see those are all in line with where

[2:07:55] residential developments can go. No changes to the small scale and minor

[2:08:00] scale roof mounted facilities as far as they can be cited. And then you see that

[2:08:04] there are some changes to the S which was permitted by SCP only to permitted

[2:08:09] by right. That's for those uh minor scale groundmounted facilities. And then

[2:08:14] for utility scale you'll see some addition of SCP uses that is required by

[2:08:19] state code. Anything that's zoned commercial or industrial has to be able

[2:08:22] to allow those by SCP. You can do it by right but we figured we didn't want to

[2:08:26] do it by right. We wanted to do it by SCP.

[2:08:31] So um solar facilities are one of those that have additional standards in line

[2:08:36] with them. Um not every development has those but solar is definitely one of the

[2:08:40] more stringent uses in the code as far as development standards are concerned.

[2:08:45] So amended setbacks in line with state code changes and this is a win. I think

[2:08:49] this is addition of setbacks from wetlands or perennial streams that was

[2:08:53] included in this new ordinance. It clarifies the erosion and sediment

[2:08:57] control regulations. There's nothing particularly new about these. It just

[2:09:00] actually directly references DEEQ standards. Now there is an addition of

[2:09:05] wildlife corridor requirements for fencing. So basically wildlife has some

[2:09:10] issues if these solar facilities are all fenced in. Um they find it very

[2:09:14] difficult to move throughout. So when they develop these sites we want to see

[2:09:18] them actually develop them in such a way that wildlife can go through those uh

[2:09:21] parcels still. Um something that is a big change the reduction in the required

[2:09:26] vegetative buffer width. These are per state code changes. So that is a

[2:09:30] reduction from 150 ft to 50 feet in width. And then also a reduction in new

[2:09:35] tree planting size from 5 to 3 feet. So that's one of those things that we can't

[2:09:39] get out of. And then increasing panel height from 12 feet to 25 ft per state

[2:09:45] code changes. So those are measured from the very top of the panel. You know, a

[2:09:48] lot of these panels can track the sun. And so at the very height of that panel,

[2:09:52] they can go up to 25 ft now. And I think it's measured from the adjacent grape.

[2:09:57] There's also um as we discussed in the work session, one of the things that we

[2:10:01] heard from you all and the board of supervisors and the folks uh who

[2:10:04] attended the meetings is that we did not want to see solar facilities on prime

[2:10:08] farmland and there was a big concern about erodable land in the county and

[2:10:13] whether these facilities can be cited on that. So you'll see in the updated code

[2:10:17] that we've actually prohibited those from being cited on anything that

[2:10:21] includes prime farmland or anything that's identified as highly erodable or

[2:10:26] potentially highly erodable land. Those are definitions that are provided from

[2:10:30] the USDA. um and do include as we discussed in the work session some maps

[2:10:35] as far as the prime farmland is concerned and the soil types that are

[2:10:39] included for what is actually erodable or highly erodable.

[2:10:45] And then this last bit we didn't get to uh in the work session but is a little

[2:10:49] secondary in some respects to those more bigger picture items is that for

[2:10:53] development standards we asked them to um take a look and if it was feasible to

[2:10:59] require community meetings to be held in the same magisterial district as the

[2:11:03] proposed project. Uh in the code that it was currently written as we just

[2:11:07] required them to have a community meeting prior to an application. We

[2:11:10] didn't specify where it needed to go. And so the one facility that wanted to

[2:11:14] go off Kataba Road actually had a meeting in Blige. So we wanted to make

[2:11:18] sure that the folks that would be locally impacted by that wouldn't have

[2:11:21] to travel too far away. So we asked them to identify that those community

[2:11:24] meetings happen in the same magisterial district. Um so hopefully that helps a

[2:11:28] little bit there. There's the addition of the Appalachin Trail and the Blue

[2:11:32] Ridge Parkway other scenic byways to the required environmental and cultural

[2:11:37] resources report. So that is something that every potential solar facility

[2:11:41] needs to submit to staff prior to holding a public hearing. And this just

[2:11:46] spells out that if we want to see any impacts to those specific cultural um

[2:11:51] resources that we have, requires facilities to comply with DEEQ

[2:11:55] storm water requirements as I mentioned before and then requires top soil to not

[2:12:00] be removed from the site. Um and if it is moved around on the site that it is

[2:12:05] returned and I know Mr. Lucas, you had a great question about what that actually

[2:12:08] looks like. Um, and so we will review that more closely as well. Adds the

[2:12:14] battery storage is a byite accessory use. Again, that's not one that we have

[2:12:17] any control over. An interesting one is a requirement for the zoning

[2:12:21] administrator. That's what ZA is to submit a record of all SCP decisions to

[2:12:26] the SEC not later than 60 days as to whether it was approved, denied, and

[2:12:30] what the conversation was like. And then this last one is that if the solar

[2:12:34] facilities or the property owner decides to sell, the new owner has to provide a

[2:12:39] substitute shity within 60 days. I believe um to ensure that they have

[2:12:43] what's covered for the decommissioning. And I think that's all I've got for you

[2:12:48] as far as the big picture items. Like I said, you've not had the chance to fully

[2:12:52] review this. It is a large substantive change and you are also unfortunate that

[2:12:57] you don't have the full comprehensive plan amendments in front of you too. And

[2:13:00] so it' probably be best planning uh practice to go ahead and have both of

[2:13:04] those before you at once before you make your decision. That's what I would want

[2:13:07] myself. And so recommendation from staff is that you deny the zoning ordinance

[2:13:12] tonight uh with the understanding that you are going to be working on this

[2:13:15] later on directly with staff potentially the consultants as well uh in the future

[2:13:20] to come up with a better more aligned ordinance with the comprehensive plan.

[2:13:24] Happy to answer any questions you might have.

[2:13:26] » Thank you John. I think for the benefit of everyone getting on the same page

[2:13:31] before we start the conversation again for those of you all who weren't here at

[2:13:33] the work session um each commissioner had a long list of concerns and

[2:13:38] questions that we discussed during the work session the general consensus at

[2:13:42] that time was that none of us were pleased that we had had enough

[2:13:48] conversation about specific items and that we wanted to continue that

[2:13:53] conversation and not vote in approval of this tonight not reflective upon

[2:14:00] specific items but we're just not comfortable that we have had time to

[2:14:04] talk about it amongst ourselves that's why in the beginning um noted that the

[2:14:09] next meeting will be work session only we don't have any applicants coming

[2:14:13] forward in front of us so we won't have public hearings so we will start at 5:00

[2:14:17] still but the entire thing will be a work session if anybody's interested in

[2:14:20] coming to hear the further conversations that we have after we have some of our

[2:14:25] questions from this evening answer by staff and we'll talk about it next week.

[2:14:29] I mean at our next meeting. Um for example, Mr. Hartman had some points

[2:14:34] that we didn't get to in the work session that he wants to highlight

[2:14:38] quickly for public record and that we will all be circulating these questions

[2:14:42] and be prepared for the next work session. So, do you want to start with

[2:14:44] that? >> I've got seven questions that I not

[2:14:48] knowing how this would be tonight. So, I've got those that I'd like to pass out

[2:14:52] and I agree with you here. It's just a quick package that was put together and

[2:14:57] we really didn't have time to view this whole thing. So, I was worried that I

[2:15:02] better have something organized here to kind of pass out. So, I'll pass these

[2:15:07] out to you. >> I can hand them down for you if you want

[2:15:09] to speak. >> Take one and I'll take a

[2:15:14] » Yeah, you take yours and speak and I'll do your I'll be your secretary.

[2:15:21] » Who gets five minutes? We'll put that with 10 minutes.

[2:15:44] » And Mr. Hartman, is that something that you wanted to vocally go over? Is that

[2:15:46] » You want to go over the bullet point? Anybody tell the bullet points? Anybody

[2:15:50] want to know what what we're >> I felt like that um a lot of things some

[2:15:54] of them got taken out of this and so I really wanted to go over to say this. So

[2:16:00] every 3 years I wanted to have it to re-evaluate to clean up the bond so we

[2:16:04] can look at it as far as the cost going up and they would have to pay that

[2:16:12] expense if it goes up. And uh I also wanted to look at the sink holes and

[2:16:16] steep slopes and the fragile genetics approach that we would look closely on

[2:16:23] that that that is a a big part of it. The developer must pay for this

[2:16:29] um that it won't trigger cracks and limestone and sink holes. This is

[2:16:34] important pre-construction safety for uh

[2:16:38] batteries. A lot of them right now don't do

[2:16:42] batteries right now maybe, but down the road they might. I'd want to see that

[2:16:46] that was dedicated, contained, and and a water loop so that if a fire

[2:16:51] broke out, it wouldn't be toxic runoff. I wanted to make sure that the special

[2:16:56] exemption protection to our neighborhood that the attorneys would confirm that

[2:17:02] moving forward that this utility is entirely under special exception SCP

[2:17:09] that would give us absolute veto power that this would give us things like if

[2:17:14] it's not a one out one mile buffer refusing to meet the 75 mile property

[2:17:20] setback 200 foot buffer uh failure in any way with the scenic

[2:17:27] view sheds, failure with the t type graveley,

[2:17:31] any layout that fails to protect the neighborhoods, the noise, the glare, the

[2:17:35] visual caused by putting these panels in. Um

[2:17:41] that we would have the ability if they didn't do burying the cables, I think

[2:17:45] that was something new that has come out. Uh if we would have f full legal

[2:17:52] right to deny a solar farm coming into property in

[2:17:57] Bodat, we want a third party independent

[2:18:01] inspection paid by the developer so that the solar company and staff wouldn't be

[2:18:06] taking care of that. They would be looking in into the inspections weekly

[2:18:10] doing the construction annually doing the um annual spec inspection to check

[2:18:17] and they would be checking for the evergreen the buffers violations found

[2:18:21] would in trigger immediate stop work order if that wasn't in up to code.

[2:18:30] Another thing that was really important was the solar companies, they sell their

[2:18:34] product projects. So like they'll sell it off to an LLC, a shell company after

[2:18:40] they get approval. And I want text amended to be put in there that special

[2:18:45] conditions on that. I want noise regulations. I want nighttime noise

[2:18:51] regulations to be able to I've spelled out where that's at. I want

[2:18:55] decommissioning bond liabilities. The transfers to that future owner and the

[2:19:01] parent company of the shell company if that's how it goes would be under the

[2:19:06] legal financial responsibility. And um I want chemical and herbicides. I

[2:19:13] do not want them to be able to use chemicals and herbicides all over that

[2:19:17] property to run down in the key limestone groundwater.

[2:19:23] So I would ban all chemicals. They would have to manage that with habitat

[2:19:29] uh rows using mechanical mowing or grazing livestock.

[2:19:33] These are things that the county that the county citizens need to have in

[2:19:39] there to protect them and it's things that can slip by that really mean a lot.

[2:19:49] But we need fully to have control over that. not not the state. We need to

[2:19:54] build and it's spelled out in here that we need to have that and we need to hear

[2:19:58] that from the county attorney that these things are correct and what's been done.

[2:20:06] I they did a good layout the way they put it together. Um I think that was

[2:20:12] good. I don't like some of the things they took out and I'm trying to put them

[2:20:16] back in and and this might not be everyone else might have opinions too to

[2:20:22] what they want to add into it but for me these are not not negotiable they've got

[2:20:28] to go in and we've got to protect the people the citizens of bodat

[2:20:34] » I have a recommendation maybe for staff to consider for our next work session

[2:20:40] could you prepare a table for us some of the points that were in our

[2:20:45] packet. I I I appreciated the track changes that showed us what was

[2:20:51] different. That's I liked that part, but I also sometimes had to keep going back

[2:20:55] and forth to confirm that this was due to a state regulation. Even in the

[2:20:59] slides, sometimes it's really clear, sometimes it's not. Yeah.

[2:21:02] » And even with Mr. heart. What I was going to ask is if it's possible to have

[2:21:07] the Berkeley group or you or whoever go through that packet that you gave us and

[2:21:12] make us a table that says these are changes that we must comply to because

[2:21:17] of state law. >> Yes. That

[2:21:19] » well I say what might also be helpful helpful. I mean certainly you've coded

[2:21:24] things red that we've changed. If you actually make a different color and just

[2:21:27] say these are something that we can't change because of the state law. that

[2:21:32] might actually make it easier and then you wouldn't have to redo it. Just

[2:21:35] change the colors of which ones were mandatory by this the new state law to

[2:21:39] some of the points that Mr. Mr. Hartman has listed too. I think some of these

[2:21:42] things whether they are valuable valid we can't do it anyway because of the new

[2:21:48] code and if you could sum you know take include that in his statements so when

[2:21:52] we start out with the work session we're starting out from a good baseline of

[2:21:56] what we are allowed to do versus we don't have any control anymore because

[2:22:00] of the new law. >> Yeah. because

[2:22:01] » yeah, as much as I want to do some of these things, I don't know if we're able

[2:22:05] to. That a little downside. >> Yeah, it's a fantastic idea and I, you

[2:22:09] know, we will definitely do that. I would want that myself. Um, if anything

[2:22:13] is less stringent, it's because state code requires us to do.

[2:22:17] » We never, there is no communication that suggested we want to make anything

[2:22:20] easier on these companies. >> Um, so if anything is a little lesser

[2:22:24] like the setbacks or the landscape, that's all state code stuff. Anything

[2:22:28] that's more stringent is because we asked them to be more stringent on that.

[2:22:30] » I think it would help be more efficient at the next work session if we start out

[2:22:34] on that baseline so we can all figure out what what is state law and what

[2:22:39] » we have flexibility on. >> Absolutely.

[2:22:42] » Okay, we can do that. >> Thank you, Mr. Hartman. Does anybody

[2:22:45] else have comments that they didn't bring up in the work session? Mr. Lucas,

[2:22:48] » I I I do. Um, could you put uh my slide the first the um the first um item on my

[2:22:59] uh flash drive says board of supervisors meeting on May 26th. Would you put that

[2:23:04] up please? All right. I'm going to take a step back here because I'm pretty

[2:23:09] outraged as how this is basically transpired.

[2:23:14] Let me read basically what happened at the bot on the May 26th board of

[2:23:19] supervisors meeting that brings us to where we are today. County Attorney

[2:23:23] Lockabe presented a resolution to direct the planning commission to hold a public

[2:23:30] hearing and make recommendations on proposed zoning ordinance amendments and

[2:23:36] comprehensive plan language related to solar facilities.

[2:23:40] Okay. A resolution to direct the planning

[2:23:45] commission to hold a public hearing. He noted that the proposed amendments fall

[2:23:50] into two categories. Those already consistent with the existing

[2:23:54] comprehensive plan and those mandated by general assembly

[2:23:58] action. Notable statemandated changes include a requirement that all

[2:24:03] localities provide a special exception process for solar facilities,

[2:24:08] effectively prohibiting outright bans, reduce setbacks for most solar facility

[2:24:14] types, and incorporation of DEQ environmental compliance language into

[2:24:18] local zoning ordinances. The planning commission was given up the planning

[2:24:23] commission was give us right here was given up to 100 days by law to respond

[2:24:31] through the board. Though the board indicated a preference for exception

[2:24:35] action, a separate more deliberate process was directed for comprehensive

[2:24:40] plan review of renewable energy policy with a recommended completion deadline

[2:24:46] of November 30th. So the motion was then that the board direct the planning

[2:24:51] commission to consider and make recommendations on the proposed zoning

[2:24:55] ordinance amendments and amendments to the comprehensive plan related to the

[2:25:00] solar facilities and it passed unanimously. Mr. Snyder, Mr. Nicely,

[2:25:06] Miss Rothman, Dr. uh Scott Horn and Mr. Michael. Okay. All right. So that's what

[2:25:13] passed. But that's not at all what happened, is it? What happened is that

[2:25:17] the administration took that,

[2:25:22] took it to the planning department to the total exclusion of the planning

[2:25:27] commission, hired a firm,

[2:25:32] contracted the firm, gave the firm 60 days to work on this. 60 days,

[2:25:38] pay thousands and thousands of dollars for it. And now we have this packet

[2:25:43] here. It's all these wonderful words. Words that you can drive a bus through.

[2:25:48] It's got so many holes in it. Okay. A firm that basically advertises that what

[2:25:54] they do basically is help develop solar facilities.

[2:25:59] Wonderful. Okay. The the nonbiased firm. Okay. No one else was looked at for

[2:26:05] this. No one here was consulted about it. We have this packet now and we have

[2:26:10] days now basically to work on it. you all took 60 days and during those 60

[2:26:15] days none of us were contacted at all in this process all of these thoughts that

[2:26:22] could have gone into this by Mr. Hartman Mr. Lucas Mr. M me our chair. None of us

[2:26:31] none of us were reached out to uh were farmers talk and considered the the the

[2:26:38] the person that came up with the initial language. He wasn't contacted by anybody

[2:26:43] at all at all. No input from so it was done totally in a vacuum

[2:26:51] and now this is our starting point. Okay. So,

[2:26:58] so okay, this is our starting point. So, let's let's one of the things that I'm

[2:27:03] that I stated from the beginning was my concern about proliferation and also

[2:27:08] decommissioning and restoration. Okay, almost nothing in here about

[2:27:16] decommissioning and restoration. Restoration. Okay, so what are you going

[2:27:20] to restore to? You know, what are you going to restore to? Somehow you have to

[2:27:25] capture what you start with if you're going to restore back to it. Not covered

[2:27:30] at all in any way, shape, or form. Right? So you'd you'd say, gee, okay, so

[2:27:37] what I thought might be really good here is that as the solar applications come

[2:27:44] to us, perhaps a what I refer to as a solar site condition and satisfax

[2:27:51] satisfaction report be established. Okay.

[2:27:56] And the the the company that would like to put a solar facility goes to this

[2:28:03] solar site condition and satisfaction report and basically satisfies it. And

[2:28:09] if it satisfies it, it then comes before the board of super, you know, the the

[2:28:13] planning commission to basically vote to move on to the board of

[2:28:19] supervisors. But if it can't satisfy those things, okay,

[2:28:24] you know, it it it

[2:28:29] they can go back and try to satisfy it or realize that no, this isn't going to

[2:28:33] work here. Okay, it it so so part of that would be um you know, is it on

[2:28:40] prime farmland? You know, it it no, if is it on highly erodable soil? No. How

[2:28:47] about m wildlife migratory routes? Is it on that? Okay. Nowhere in here does it

[2:28:53] talk about that. There's a solar facility that was put in that kills

[2:28:57] tremendous amount of birds because they're on a maratory route. You see,

[2:29:02] they hire people to collect dead birds on a regular basis. Okay. No one ever

[2:29:08] thought of that before that went in. Okay. I think we should because it's

[2:29:13] happening. I would say that's part of the application packages that we saw.

[2:29:17] They the applicant had to pay for the studies about the migratory paths.

[2:29:22] » But it's not it's not embodied in this document. Okay. Um the um now it does

[2:29:30] have some nice things in it as far as that it can't be any closer than a

[2:29:34] certain distance from another facility, etc. I like that. Um uh the setbacks,

[2:29:41] etc. But but what I what I what I come down to is if it's temporary,

[2:29:48] if it's temporary, then we ought to say, is that our

[2:29:52] attitude? We're going to accept solar, but on a temporary basis, not on a

[2:29:56] permanent basis. If it's for for agricultural land. Okay. Uh we're not

[2:30:02] going to allow it on forest conservation. Is that correct? That's

[2:30:06] off limits. >> Yeah. I mean, I think

[2:30:09] » I think that's up for us to decide. We have to decide that but

[2:30:12] » right >> I wouldn't want I don't think you can

[2:30:14] put it in that. >> Okay.

[2:30:15] » I think it's too many tree cover. [clears throat]

[2:30:17] » How do we treat that right now with forest conservation is it allowed

[2:30:21] » an SCP >> with special exception?

[2:30:23] » It's actually not allowed at all. >> Not allowed at all. Great. Okay. Things

[2:30:27] like that. But but overall is our attitude for agricultural

[2:30:33] application, which is what our county really has identified as that if it's if

[2:30:38] we're going to allow it, it ought to be temporary. Not not not 40, 50 years, but

[2:30:44] temporary. And I suggest 15 years. Allow them to

[2:30:49] come in, put it in if it satisfies the other requirements. But at the end of 15

[2:30:54] years or maybe 20 years, okay, it's got to be taken out because it's temporary.

[2:31:00] You see, it's got to go away and it's got to get restored back to agriculture.

[2:31:06] Um that's what I would push for. Um and um and the person and the company would

[2:31:13] have to say okay we agree to that and that and that within six months

[2:31:19] of the end of life of that facility which we would define as 15 to 20 years.

[2:31:24] Okay. Uh regardless of what they do to it, okay, that goes away for the health

[2:31:29] of that farmland. Um but then when I get into the restoration

[2:31:37] um that gets really really really really tough because you need to determine what

[2:31:45] is the status of that site before anything starts to happen with

[2:31:51] the solar construction. So what I'm suggesting is that part of this

[2:31:57] condition site report is that soil samples are taken throughout the entire

[2:32:04] site. maybe every th every thousand square

[2:32:08] feet, okay, a soil sample is taken so that 15 20 years from now, okay, they

[2:32:16] pull out this condition report and they have to put it back to where what what

[2:32:23] the quality of that farmland was at that time as defined by something. Otherwise,

[2:32:31] it's it's 15 20 years later. women, you know,

[2:32:37] » and and and you won't know. So, so something like that. I I I

[2:32:42] um and um and and and we're talking such a long

[2:32:48] period of time that you mentioned short. How is that going to work? You know,

[2:32:54] these companies, Mr. Hartman made an excellent point about these companies

[2:33:00] get sold and sold again and sold again and sold again.

[2:33:04] So along the way, maybe the shity doesn't get continued.

[2:33:09] And when that happens, who's going to pay for the decommissioning and the

[2:33:14] restoration? Better not be the people of Bat County.

[2:33:19] Better not fall at the owner because owner is probably not going to be able

[2:33:22] to afford to do it. And we don't want a derelict abandoned solar facility on our

[2:33:28] landscape. Um, >> can I pause you for one second? I I

[2:33:33] think that's a good point. And did anything change in the state law about

[2:33:37] how we already require the bonds, the shirt? Anything change to make that less

[2:33:41] stringent than what we already require? >> Because they have to be updated every 3

[2:33:45] years, right? >> Well, the state law changed it to once

[2:33:49] every five years or whenever the ownership of the property changes, it

[2:33:53] needs to be updated. And yeah, they're actually the as far as the uh com

[2:33:58] conditions at the as far as having a a pre-construction conditions report,

[2:34:03] there are accepted engineering standards on that and that's required both by

[2:34:07] state law and our practices right now. So that would be not really adding

[2:34:12] anything to what we're currently doing. And we do have a pretty robust set of

[2:34:18] shy documents that we make people fill out and have their shy online. And that

[2:34:23] shy needs to be either renewed every five years or upon any transfer of the

[2:34:28] property. And if somebody transfers the property and does not renew its

[2:34:33] decommissioning shy within 30 days after the transfer of the property, we pull

[2:34:38] the shy and we bring them into the conversation. And by bring shy into the

[2:34:42] conversation meaning we give them a notice of default and tell them that we

[2:34:48] are going to start uh default proceedings under the decommissioning

[2:34:52] agreement. >> So the default would mean that it would

[2:34:56] be totally decommissioned and restored. >> Well, we would have the right to uh to

[2:35:02] go in there and do that as a matter assuming that the transferee is actually

[2:35:07] solvent. They're just going to give you a new shy. They're going to say, "Oh,

[2:35:10] our fault. we're going to substitute a new shy. If they're not, then yeah, we

[2:35:14] can go in and we can draw upon that shy or the shy can on their own nickel go in

[2:35:20] and do a restoration. >> But what's this? What's the shy amount?

[2:35:24] I mean, what if we we we had one applicant that talked about restoration

[2:35:30] » and they provided an amount of just tens of thousands of dollars. My god, if you

[2:35:36] have to restore the soil >> Mhm. If you have to remove contamination

[2:35:40] that occurred during 15, 20 years and restore the soil, you're you're talking

[2:35:45] millions of dollars. You're not talking tens of thousands of dollars. You're

[2:35:50] talking hundreds, if not millions of dollars.

[2:35:53] » Well, there are engineers who do these reviews for solar companies and they

[2:35:58] come in a little bit low, as you might imagine, on their estimate of

[2:36:02] restoration costs. There are also engineers who do this for local

[2:36:05] governments and they come in higher and that tends to be where that plays out.

[2:36:11] » So um so can we require the shity to be the

[2:36:18] worst case scenario? There's a calculation methodology and at

[2:36:24] the end of it set set out in state code and I think that probably your decision

[2:36:29] on it as long as it wasn't arbitrary and capriccious would probably be upheld.

[2:36:34] » I can give you an example of of something that Bodatat does that's

[2:36:38] unique um that the companies will push back on which is they want to only bond

[2:36:43] less the salvage value. We're not in the salvage business. We don't have time to

[2:36:46] do that. So, we do not deduct the salvage value of any of any of it from

[2:36:52] the bond amount that has to be posted. And it in the previous bonds that we've

[2:36:56] had, we've been very clear it has to go back to the exact pre-existing

[2:37:00] conditions, whether at a later date, a future official or a future board or a

[2:37:06] future whoever could decide that they didn't want to restore it for whatever

[2:37:11] reason, we would still hold the bond for that. So going back to exact conditions,

[2:37:16] you have to you have to capture what those conditions were before it starts

[2:37:21] or else you can't go back. Um you know there's a there's in Ron Oak there's a

[2:37:28] solar facility that's derelict. It's abandoned and apparently the shy to to

[2:37:34] decommission that there's nothing there. There's nothing there and now they're

[2:37:40] trying to figure out who's going to pay to restore it. So, so, so right in our

[2:37:45] very close to where we are, we have a situation where everything went wrong

[2:37:51] and and and we brought that up before. Has anybody looked at that? Anybody

[2:37:55] studied that? >> What happened there? We don't want to

[2:37:58] happen here. >> The facility that's next to the Salem VA

[2:38:01] medical center, >> I think so.

[2:38:03] » Yeah. Um, I've not looked into that. I don't know.

[2:38:06] » Has the consulting firm that we hired, have they looked into it? different

[2:38:10] rules and regulations than what is today.

[2:38:14] » Also, I think we already do better than that because we do require bonds and

[2:38:19] shurities. So, and it sounds like they didn't. I don't know their business, but

[2:38:22] » No, I know you've been making a list, Mr. McCoy, as we've been talking, but I

[2:38:27] wanted to make sure that a couple of things that Mr. Tyson said, we

[2:38:30] definitely again could you have ready to start out on our baseline conversation

[2:38:35] at the next work session? >> Definitely. this issue of restoration

[2:38:39] and how is that defined? Um how how do we eva how do you evaluate that? Some in

[2:38:45] some cases this the soil is allegedly left in better condition than before and

[2:38:51] how how do you define that? Um we brought up in the work session this

[2:38:56] issue of monitoring particularly erosion and soil quality. um whether that's a

[2:39:02] code, a zoning language issue, or if it's handled under enforcement and how

[2:39:07] to not do something to complicate and conflict those two. Could you be ready

[2:39:12] to in educate us on that? And we also talked about at the work session this

[2:39:17] definition of temporary and are we allowed under the state code to define

[2:39:24] quote unquote temporary? Can we limit these facilities to 20-year life versus

[2:39:28] etc. So, could you see about what we're allowed to do there before the next work

[2:39:32] session? >> Absolutely.

[2:39:34] » Thank you. >> And and I do see where we've listed

[2:39:38] wildlife corridors in there, but does that include migratory um routes?

[2:39:46] » I know that was covered in the other applications. I don't know whether they

[2:39:49] did that out of the goodness of their heart or whether that was part of our

[2:39:52] existing zoning. State had to write up those reports. Are

[2:39:56] we going to get an opportunity for um public comment on this public?

[2:40:02] » If we're finished if we're finishing quizzing and requesting information, Mr.

[2:40:08] McCoy, I will open the public hearing. Are you guys ready?

[2:40:12] » Yeah. >> Well, I I put a lot of value into what

[2:40:15] people bring forward and um um we we have a citizen that's put a lot of

[2:40:22] effort into this. He wasn't contacted in the process of generating that. He's a

[2:40:27] he's a successful farmer. He is a expert in soil. He's here.

[2:40:34] » Can we since since the board asked us to hold a hearing?

[2:40:42] » Is that okay? >> Can he only speak I mean can't we bring

[2:40:45] him forward just like >> Mr. Yes.

[2:40:50] » No. No. I don't mean a three minute limit. Can he come forward where where

[2:40:55] we we can ask him questions from his perspective and get his input?

[2:41:00] » Why can't we do that? See, the board said we could hold a hearing.

[2:41:07] » All right. Can I make a motion to allow him to come forward and talk to us?

[2:41:13] » I think he's on the list and we can certainly offer more time if we think

[2:41:17] that's important. >> I think

[2:41:29] Well, tell you what, he he can he can give us his qualific.

[2:41:36] He's talking about you.

[2:41:43] » But wait a minute. Wait a minute. I'm not going to be able to ask him any

[2:41:47] questions. I only get his three minutes in. I'm not asking him to come forward

[2:41:52] as a speaker. I'm asking him to come forward as an expert that we can talk

[2:41:58] to. >> But

[2:42:05] their experience for me to call them an expert when it

[2:42:11] might be just because I personally believe they're grieving. So, we can't

[2:42:15] set that precedent. If at the next work session you would like to have an

[2:42:18] invited speaker, we can address how that process is worked out. I think that

[2:42:22] would be great if Mr. Williamson wants to do that. But he has Thank you for

[2:42:26] signing up. >> I'm sorry. I'm going to make a motion to

[2:42:30] invite Mr. Tom Williamson to come and speak before us so we can ask him

[2:42:35] questions and that he has pertinent information. He's provided substant

[2:42:40] information. >> Mr. Lockabe, is this like a point of

[2:42:43] order? I don't know. >> I mean, if he wants to make a motion to

[2:42:47] let anyone in the world speak and the board votes by three votes to go for it,

[2:42:54] » you you're you're a parliamentary body. You can listen to

[2:42:58] I mean there there are limits to what you can do, but if you want to have a

[2:43:01] special speaker, >> okay,

[2:43:03] » for me to stand, >> I make a motion to have a special

[2:43:06] speaker, Mr. Town Williamson, come before the board, the commission, excuse

[2:43:11] me, and and and um provide his credentials, his experience, his

[2:43:16] background, his contribution to this subject, and uh be available for any

[2:43:21] questions we may have for him. >> Can somebody else

[2:43:24] » Mr. Tyson has made a motion for a spe special speaker from the audience, Mr.

[2:43:28] Tom Williamson. Is there a second? >> I I just think you ought to come join

[2:43:34] our workshop. That That's when we're going to do a workshop.

[2:43:37] » He would be here and we'd have plenty of time to have him here. That would be a

[2:43:42] good time to >> Motion fails because there's no second.

[2:43:48] Mr. Williamson, perhaps you could meet with us after the meeting and discuss

[2:43:51] the next work section. Thank you. Thank you. And you still have

[2:43:57] » I would now like to open the public hearing. Um, first speaker on solar is

[2:44:03] Miss Jerusk. I'm sorry. I think I say your name wrong

[2:44:07] every time. >> It's correct. Thank you.

[2:44:15] » It's working.

[2:44:19] » My name is Shirley Dusk. I'm from the Finn Castle District.

[2:44:25] I am here tonight because I believe Bodatak County is at a crossroads. This

[2:44:29] is not just another solar application. This is about deciding what kind of

[2:44:34] county we intend to leave our children and our grandchildren.

[2:44:39] I am not opposed to solar energy. I am opposed to turning productive farmland,

[2:44:44] forest, wildlife habitat, and some of the most beautiful landscapes in

[2:44:47] Virginia into industrial power plants. Industrial solar facilities are not

[2:44:53] agriculture. They are not industrial. They are industrial land uses. They

[2:44:59] replace living ecosystems with miles of steel, glass fencing, access roads,

[2:45:03] electrical infrastructure, and security lighting. They fragment wildlife

[2:45:07] habitat, disrupt rural viewsheds, and permanently alter the character of the

[2:45:13] land. Virginia law gives local governments the authority and the

[2:45:18] responsibility to make land use decisions that protect the health,

[2:45:22] safety, and welfare of their citizens through sound planning.

[2:45:26] The comprehensive plan is not just another document to sit on a shelf. It

[2:45:31] is the vision of our future. The newly adopted 2026 Bodatak County

[2:45:36] comprehensive plan speaks repeatedly about protecting our rural character,

[2:45:40] preserving agriculture, conserving natural resources, and directing growth

[2:45:44] where infrastructure already exists. Those words must mean something. If they

[2:45:49] don't guide your decisions, then they are just empty promises. Over the past

[2:45:54] year, the people of this county have spoken loudly. We have seen packed

[2:45:57] public meetings, overflowing rooms, countless public comments, and citizens

[2:46:02] spending hundreds of hours researching major industrial projects. Whether the

[2:46:06] issue is a data center, large apartment complexes, or industrial solar solar

[2:46:11] farms, the message has been remarkably consistent.

[2:46:15] The people of Batat do not want uncontrolled industrialization of our

[2:46:20] rural county. Planning Commissioner Mark Tyson has consistently reminded us that

[2:46:24] planning must be based on facts, long-term consequences, and protecting

[2:46:29] the public interest, not simply reacting to the next proposal that comes through

[2:46:33] the door. That is exactly what this commission was created to do. Every

[2:46:38] industrial project is presented as being unique. Everyone promises benefits, but

[2:46:43] eventually those individual approvals become something much larger. They

[2:46:47] become a pattern. And once that pattern changes the identity of the county,

[2:46:52] there is no undo button. You cannot [clears throat] recreate a 200-year-old

[2:46:56] farm. You cannot instantly replace mature forest. You cannot restore scenic

[2:47:02] mountain views once they have been industrialized. And you cannot tell

[2:47:05] future generations that we simply didn't realize what we were doing. Economic

[2:47:10] development is important, but not every project belongs in every community. Bat

[2:47:14] County's greatest assets has always been uh the land, the water, the farms, and

[2:47:21] the forest. Um, please do the right thing. Thank you.

[2:47:24] » Thank you,

[2:47:29] » Miss Smith. You're on. So, okay.

[2:47:36] Next up would be Miss Wilhelm on solar.

[2:47:44] My name is Melissa Smith. I live on Ivy Lane. That's in the Amsterdam district.

[2:47:50] So, I expect the Amsterdam representative to hear and vote

[2:47:55] according to what we rep want representative.

[2:47:59] The solar farms are inadequate. The legislation that we have before us is

[2:48:04] completely inadequate. For one thing, you have not addressed at all the agics.

[2:48:10] That's the battery sink that's needed to hold the power that's generated by the

[2:48:14] panels. And whether they're going to be above ground or underground, how they're

[2:48:19] going to be decommissioned is irrelevant if there's a disaster. And these things

[2:48:24] can come under disasters. And it's like 81 on a good day, there's no problem.

[2:48:31] But 81, it takes one person on a bad day to mess up everything and then it's

[2:48:38] disaster for everybody. I have serious problems because there's no oversight.

[2:48:44] There's been no oversight for what the Western Virginia Water Authority has

[2:48:47] been doing. They just get cart blanch to go and do it as motioned by my

[2:48:53] representative earlier. And what about the erosion? There's no

[2:48:59] oversight to check. And Mr. Lockabe says, "Well, we'll go after them for

[2:49:04] default. That's inadequate, sir, because we need to prevent the loss of our

[2:49:10] precious farmlands, and we need to prevent erosion. My neighbor's driveway

[2:49:16] is one that's susceptible to erosion. And believe me, erosion can be

[2:49:20] catastrophic, and it can happen in half a heartbeat. And we do not need to make

[2:49:27] these decisions in half a heartbeat. So I'm hoping that you'll continue the

[2:49:31] hearing to another time when we do have experts like Mr.son. I'm so a gasast and

[2:49:38] offended. John Alderson is one of my best friends father. They went out of

[2:49:43] their way to develop language based on what experts say is relevant with the SW

[2:49:50] and water and our values because John Auterson is one of the best citizens Bit

[2:49:57] County has and he has funded philanthropy that y'all wouldn't even

[2:50:01] know about. So, I'm very disappointed that the planning commission didn't get

[2:50:07] what they were promised by the board to set what the bureaucrats set for us. And

[2:50:13] the language is important. So, I'm encouraging you to have a hearing that

[2:50:19] discusses whether solar scale is efficient at the 1 kilowatt, at the 20

[2:50:25] kilowatt, or the 20 one megawatt. None of us can even imagine what those sinks

[2:50:30] look like until we can until we have some official experts in the solar field

[2:50:35] like from the Sierra Club that the data center got to come. These people are

[2:50:39] around and they will come and give us the information to make better

[2:50:44] decisions. So I encourage you to do so. >> Thank you.

[2:50:49] » Thank you.

[2:51:01] I'm Judy Wilhelm. I'm from the Fin Castle District. I have no problem with

[2:51:08] solar energy. If you want to put it on your home or some building, fine. But

[2:51:17] don't put it on our farmland. Don't Don't allow these

[2:51:24] big solar companies to come in and destroy

[2:51:30] what we have here in Bodatat County. This is an agricultural

[2:51:37] county and it has some of the most beautiful

[2:51:43] views in this state. I mean, this is God's country.

[2:51:52] If I would recommend that they put solar on existing

[2:52:02] buildings. If they want to make a solar farm, get with companies that

[2:52:10] um and stores that and make uh covered area for parking.

[2:52:20] you know, that doesn't disrupt the the view. It just provides a

[2:52:29] a place for the sore to be.

[2:52:35] And I don't like the the chance that it does ruin the

[2:52:42] farmland because we all know that they do leech chemicals into the ground.

[2:52:51] Just please keep Bodatat green and beautiful

[2:52:58] because I'm proud of this county and where I live. I've lived here all my

[2:53:04] life. Thank you.

[2:53:08] » Thank Bzer on solar.

[2:53:14] I thought I saw him. Mr. Von Bells, are you still here?

[2:53:19] » Okay.

[2:53:26] » Yeah. I'm uh Bill Vanelzer, Fin Castle District.

[2:53:31] Um, after reading through the meeting packet

[2:53:36] for tonight's meeting, I'd like to share with you some concerns I have regard

[2:53:40] regarding uh future construction of minor scale groundmounted and utility

[2:53:45] scale solar projects in Bodatat. In short, I think Bonitat residents and

[2:53:52] rural residents in particular deserve comprehensive plan changes that are as

[2:53:57] restrictive as possible under the new dictates from Richmond.

[2:54:02] We can't do anything about the disrespect that Northern Virginia and

[2:54:05] Richmond area urban dwellers have shown to their rural counterparts.

[2:54:11] However, we can work to preserve as much of our rural character and property

[2:54:16] valuations as possible within the framework handed

[2:54:21] down to us. Referring to the denial of one recent solar project application and

[2:54:26] the withdrawal of a second at the risk of suffering the same fate. One one

[2:54:31] thing seems clear. Bodatat residents and their elected representatives are not

[2:54:36] supportive of the general assemblies and our governor's push to industrialize our

[2:54:42] farmland. Some of my takeaways are here. It's not

[2:54:47] an exhaustive list. At the top of my list is to delay acceptance of Berkeley

[2:54:55] Group's recommendations subject to further review by you, the planning

[2:54:58] commission, and the board of supervisors and county residents.

[2:55:03] Secondly, work to place the strictest limits possible on the number of acres

[2:55:07] in the county where solar projects are permissible.

[2:55:11] Push all statemandated setbacks to their upper limits.

[2:55:18] opt to require an independent viewshed analysis that overrides any and all

[2:55:22] input from solar project developer applicants.

[2:55:26] Enhanced screening requirements for all proposed solar projects. Place stricter

[2:55:31] limitations on lighting provide a clear definition of what constitutes

[2:55:35] reasonable restoration of property as a requirement

[2:55:39] for decommissioning. There are a couple of other things.

[2:55:43] First, I urge the planning commission to challenge seriously the objectivity of

[2:55:48] the Berkeley group's recommendations regarding comprehensive plan. It is not

[2:55:52] their job to pro to protect Bodatakat County's rural character. That's our

[2:55:57] job. That's your job. And it might interest you to know that according to

[2:56:01] Open Secrets, the Berkeley Group's claims of nonpartisanship are betrayed

[2:56:07] by its political action committee. While it does in fact make political donations

[2:56:12] to both parties, there's a clear preference for progressive politicians

[2:56:17] according to records from the 2010, 2012, 2014, 2022, and 2024 election

[2:56:26] cycles. >> Thank you.

[2:56:29] » I got one more little thing to say. >> You got 10 seconds. And lastly, I'd like

[2:56:34] to know if the planning commission is aware that according to the Berkeley

[2:56:38] Group's Arc GIS system, someone here has apparently asked them to offer guidance

[2:56:45] on a wind project in Bodat County. >> Thank you.

[2:56:50] » It's on their website. >> Thank you.

[2:56:53] Um I think Mr. Williamson, you're next up.

[2:56:58] » I'm gonna give him my time. I don't think we can do that.

[2:57:04] » It's cool. It's cool. I don't It's cool. Let's do it. Six minutes. Six minutes.

[2:57:08] Three minutes. It's all good. [snorts] >> Mr. Williamson and Miss Beasley from the

[2:57:15] » Amsterdam. >> Amsterdam district. Fincastle district.

[2:57:18] Amsterdam district. >> I'm Tom Williamson from the Fincastle

[2:57:21] District. I know we've spoken a few times here

[2:57:24] before about uh solar energy as well as uh the policies here in place and while

[2:57:30] the Berkeley group here has a lot of good stuff in it. Sure, it could be

[2:57:34] beefed up and there's a lot of information there. It's 10 long, I could

[2:57:39] sit here, I could talk to you guys about soil all day if you really want me to.

[2:57:43] So, I studied at Virginia Tech. Uh I'm a successful farmer here in the county. I

[2:57:48] was crop and soil scientist. um is a very soils is a very difficult and uh

[2:57:54] well thought out science. It really is. Uh some of the stuff there that is very

[2:58:00] good protecting high erodable land is a phenomenal idea. It's very scientific.

[2:58:04] It's tied to federal law. That way if the overreaching state government tries

[2:58:08] to come back at us, they have a really hard time to do that. And this is if we

[2:58:12] go ahead and have this put in the applications when applications are

[2:58:15] applied in most likely they would never even get to this part uh to this

[2:58:20] committee. It would end up being killed at the administrative level which would

[2:58:23] be phenomenal. It's one less thing we have to send off to the SEC.

[2:58:27] Um

[2:58:33] » where are those prepared comments you did five seconds ago?

[2:58:36] » Say what? >> Where's prepared comments you did five

[2:58:39] seconds ago? Uh, I was really expecting more of a

[2:58:42] questions back and forth to help you guys with. I'm more than willing to help

[2:58:46] sit in any sort of meeting you guys might have uh when we're speaking about

[2:58:51] soils. You want to talk about farmland. Um, all the farmland, all the soils in

[2:58:56] this county have been mapped. They've been mapped for a very long time. Uh,

[2:58:59] now certain things you might have to

[2:59:02] actually go out to certain sites to kind of see and go ahead and delineate

[2:59:06] whether something is highly erodable or not. But most of the soil in this county

[2:59:10] would be either considered highly erodable or prime farmland. Then you

[2:59:14] also have land that's kind of unusable for solar as well. Um like I said, this

[2:59:19] is a very good base that we have currently from the Berkeley Group. It

[2:59:22] could be improved, Miss Hartman. I really like a lot of the ideas that you

[2:59:25] have. A lot of those could probably be put into this as well. Um

[2:59:32] I really just want to see if you guys have any questions. Anything else I can

[2:59:35] kind of clarify for you guys? I think we will hold that till the next work

[2:59:39] session. Yeah. >> But thank you very much.

[2:59:41] » Hopefully you'll be available for that. >> Um

[2:59:45] » talking about restoration of land, is it possible to do it? Mr. Tyson was

[2:59:49] speaking about that. Uh it can be done. The question is it could get very

[2:59:53] expensive very fast. It depends on exactly what has happened there. No one

[2:59:58] has a crystal ball to know what is going to happen in 20 years at one of these

[3:00:02] facilities. These facilities haven't been around for 20 years. Uh, so we

[3:00:06] could take a best guess, we can apply science to it, uh, we could plan for the

[3:00:10] worst, hope for the best. That's usually the best uh, thing to do, at least for

[3:00:14] the taxpayers of this county. Uh, we shouldn't be putting any taxpayers at

[3:00:18] any financial risk. >> Thank you.

[3:00:24] » I think you want to >> I pretty well have it covered here. I'll

[3:00:27] work with you guys any way that we can with this. I'll speak to you guys after

[3:00:30] the meeting, get you my contact information. I give you these.

[3:00:36] » I now have two. Oh, do you want to have anything else, Miss Beasley?

[3:00:41] » Are you okay? You want to Do you have anything else?

[3:00:45] » Ignore our technical people up here. They're insufficient tonight.

[3:00:50] » Yes, ma'am. If you You're on solar, right?

[3:00:54] » No, I'm just really go compliment the U commission.

[3:00:57] » Um Okay. Well, that's not on our agenda. No, I'm let me close the public meeting

[3:01:03] and then >> I'm teasing I'm teasing you. Um, let me

[3:01:08] double check with Mr. Clemens. Is Mr. Clemens here? Want to talk about solar

[3:01:13] and then we'll get to

[3:01:20] » I was admiring the Dean Clemens Fastle. I was admiring the view out of this

[3:01:24] building here with Altech and everybody talks about the views and

[3:01:30] historical stuff. I bought a house in Ashley when I first moved here up from

[3:01:34] Florida, Orlando to get away from a lot of stuff and I can imagine what it would

[3:01:41] be on that first street now on Ashley looking back over this at night with the

[3:01:45] lights. I think that'd probably suck and take a value from your house away. I

[3:01:50] don't know about solar a lot about it as other people do, but I did go to New

[3:01:54] Leaf's uh presentation of Aaron Bquett's place in downtown and they were kind

[3:01:59] enough, I guess, to serve desserts and coffee to everybody and New Leaf came

[3:02:03] out and said what they were going to do, how they're going to do it. And the

[3:02:07] gentleman on the left there came through some information real quick about the

[3:02:12] bonds, the life cycle of it, about the land. And it doesn't seem you guys have

[3:02:18] enough education or me to make decisions long term because there's only one

[3:02:22] facility here and that was Amy White's reclusal of our father's farm. I guess

[3:02:28] that's what it was. So you don't have enough history to learn that. So legally

[3:02:33] when they're talking about bonds and other stuff when we asked the question a

[3:02:37] new leaf that night they had no answers. So you'd say, "Well, what about this?" I

[3:02:41] don't know. I'll get back with you. How about this? We don't know. So lady

[3:02:46] speaks tonight about putting it on buildings. Well, you don't have enough

[3:02:49] education on that. You other communities do. And it seems like maybe you would

[3:02:53] spend a little bit of time. It sound like it was going to be a two-year

[3:02:56] process or three-year process to build these things to look at other options.

[3:03:01] And why they did a 20-year then another five and five behind it is this

[3:03:04] technology with this goes away. The life cycle of this goes away. And it seems

[3:03:10] like you should put a lot of energy into this. The thought process before you

[3:03:14] move forward with anybody. What is the impact? And the information he gave was

[3:03:18] a, you know, there's 15 things there that should probably be addressed on it.

[3:03:23] You know, when I first came, you can't say no to everything, but what impact is

[3:03:27] it going to have and who's going to get it? One of the things that I asked the

[3:03:30] question that night and several people here were in the meeting is they said,

[3:03:33] "Well, it's going to be a co-op, so you can join their little co-op. Well,

[3:03:36] what's the return? What's the payouts?" They didn't have the answer for it. I

[3:03:40] don't still I still don't think we got any information on it. So, just take

[3:03:45] your time with it. Make sure you do everything. You know, where's it going

[3:03:49] to go? Who's going to benefit from it? Sounds like a very small project. So,

[3:03:53] that's all I got. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. Anyone else want to speak on

[3:03:58] the solar? >> Yes, sir. Did you could you mind feeling

[3:04:03] out? >> Sorry, I wasn't going to.

[3:04:06] Usually I'm loud enough you can hear me without the microphone, but

[3:04:09] » can we'll go from there. My name is Shannon Turner. I'm from the Blue Ridge

[3:04:14] District. Um, just a couple of questions. If I were sitting up there in

[3:04:20] your seat, I would want to know. Um, you all seemed a little surprised when Mark

[3:04:28] Tyson had mentioned that there was a proposal from Williamson Alderson. If

[3:04:33] that wasn't presented to you, I would have some deep questions about our

[3:04:38] administration about why you didn't have that. Okay. Um, it seems very valid in

[3:04:44] something there. >> I don't know if you got it or not, but

[3:04:47] you all seemed a little bit surprised when it was brought up that it wasn't

[3:04:50] mentioned in there what that proposal was. Secondly, the administration did a

[3:04:55] very good job of showing you what you couldn't touch. Okay? But they didn't

[3:05:00] show you what you can touch. and they didn't show you what you can

[3:05:06] say no to. One line I read in there is says you must listen to special

[3:05:13] exemptions. Okay? Doesn't mean you cannot say no to special exemptions.

[3:05:19] Okay? So, please do not be mandated by a bureaucracy in Richmond

[3:05:26] that is wholesaling these western counties out

[3:05:30] um as a whole. Um, you've got a hard job. I know you do. And I know you're

[3:05:35] not paid for it. Uh, you catch it both ways. Um, I feel very I would be very

[3:05:42] upset right now if I had 100 days and I just got my information

[3:05:47] 60 days into it. I think those are questions that you need to be asking why

[3:05:52] that is happening. Um, if they're giving you that information to do because you

[3:05:58] it's your stewardship that's going to protect this county. I I'm not saying

[3:06:02] I'm for or against solar, for or against growth. It needs to be appropriate.

[3:06:08] Okay? If I have a 100 head of cattle on something that's not prime farm ground,

[3:06:13] is it still prime agricultural ground? That means I butchered that agricultural

[3:06:18] ground. To me, it is. Just because it's not prime dirt doesn't mean it's not

[3:06:24] prime growth. And your 100 cattle that's on that ground is still prime.

[3:06:30] You should be able to protect our agricultural ground for what it is

[3:06:33] because it has its use just because it's not growing the corn. You got what's

[3:06:39] sitting on it that's taking the corn off the other field to live and it makes it

[3:06:45] pretty pretty astute for those farmers that we do that that we got to protect

[3:06:49] it and protect their livelihood with that. So that's what I would say there.

[3:06:53] I think that a solar farm that is producing the amount of energy for

[3:06:59] business and sales is no longer agricultural. It's a business.

[3:07:05] Therefore, it becomes more of of a industrial site than an agricultural

[3:07:10] site and we should be very careful with our special exemptions on allowing them

[3:07:15] to go on agricultural ground. >> Thank you, Mr. Turner.

[3:07:19] » Thank you. hearing on the solar item. Um

[3:07:27] I think we are to the point that we need a

[3:07:32] motion on this action. I would have a suggestion for the commissioners to

[3:07:37] consider as we think about timing for this.

[3:07:42] We agreed in the work session or the previous work session to have an

[3:07:47] extended work session at the September meeting.

[3:07:50] Um, I just kind of worked out a timeline as we were talking about that.

[3:07:56] One thought that I had that you guys may or may not agree with and staff may or

[3:08:00] may not be able to do it. I haven't brought this up. that just came to me

[3:08:05] were was to do a specific comp plan update solar survey like we did when we

[3:08:12] wrote the comprehensive last update. Mr. Tyson and Mr. Hartman may not have been

[3:08:17] integrately involved in that, but Mr. Lucas was. If we did that and then we

[3:08:22] had a follow-up work session in October to look at those results and continue to

[3:08:27] discuss this, I think we would need approximately 120 days to work through

[3:08:34] all that. So, if we were to make a motion to deny and ask for more time, my

[3:08:41] suggestion is if whoever is in agreement with that, we use 120 days as a

[3:08:46] guideline um for the requested time of extension.

[3:08:50] » How close is that to the November deadline?

[3:08:53] » Just past, isn't it? >> What I was going to suggest, I mean, and

[3:08:57] Mr. Lockby, correct me if I'm wrong, the board can authorize longer than 100 days

[3:09:00] if they want on a text amendment. So, could we not align it just with that

[3:09:04] November date to have that finalized then as well? You can have your work

[3:09:08] session in September. You could meet again in October. You'd have multiple

[3:09:12] months to work on it. I'm not sure if that's something we can do or not.

[3:09:17] » Generally speaking, zoning amendments are when they're referred by the board

[3:09:22] of supervisors or it's 100 days unless the board of supervisors holds a public

[3:09:27] hearing and gives the commission less time. Our ordinance actually does enable

[3:09:31] the board to take action to extend the timeline.

[3:09:34] » Extend. Okay. and and you may just want to throw it by the end of the year if I

[3:09:37] mean I I understand the importance and relevance of this but if it gives you a

[3:09:41] little bit of time in there because if you you know then we

[3:09:46] don't have to do a lot of mathing um you can consider that or November or

[3:09:52] as soon as your next meeting just in the event you know we we don't generally

[3:09:57] always meet every month and so just something to keep in mind that will give

[3:10:01] you flexibility um if you wanted Okay.

[3:10:05] » Yeah, it's not later than November 30 for the uh comp plan. In my mind, if you

[3:10:11] wanted the comprehensive plan, if you wanted to do a survey, which is totally

[3:10:14] within the realm of possibility, you would probably just want to go ahead and

[3:10:17] have both those things done at the same time and consider changes to the zoning

[3:10:20] ordinance. >> I think that they do need to go hand in

[3:10:23] hand. Yeah, I think >> but you're saying it would be unusual to

[3:10:27] ask for it for December or is that I mean that gives us a lot more time to

[3:10:31] » I think getting as much comment as we can

[3:10:34] » to consider them to give you until December to work on both of them.

[3:10:39] » Yeah, >> if you wanted to do that.

[3:10:42] » My other suggestion was going to be to the planning commission and I suppose it

[3:10:47] could be to anybody here. My recommendation was going to be that we

[3:10:51] also do like we did as we were reviewing comp plan chapters. Each commissioner

[3:10:56] took that rough draft, made notes on it, and y'all compiled it so that when we go

[3:11:01] into the next work session, we all don't have to sit there and give you our

[3:11:05] litany. You have the table of this change, this change, this change. Each

[3:11:09] of us have already given it to you. Um it would might make that more organized.

[3:11:15] » Sure. Yeah, we can do that. >> If you if you all would be willing to do

[3:11:18] that. Yeah. Um >> I I I would like to say something

[3:11:22] though. The second solar facility that special exception permit that came

[3:11:27] before us, we delayed it for 90 days. You remember that? And what happened in

[3:11:32] those 90 days? Nothing. >> They withdraw

[3:11:36] » nothing. >> One withdrew and then one was denied at

[3:11:40] that joint public hearing. Right. >> Right. But but in that 90-day period

[3:11:44] that we were supposed to basically utilize to address that, nothing

[3:11:49] happened. >> We just it came before us 90 days later.

[3:11:53] » Sure. And that was totally up to the applicant to make any changes.

[3:11:56] » Excuse me. >> That was totally up to the applicant to

[3:11:58] make any changes to their facility. I can't force them to make changes to then

[3:12:03] present to you all. This is the opportunity for you to make these

[3:12:05] changes and give you plenty of time to do it, too. I I think that 90 days was

[3:12:10] good to Mark because it gave us time to really think about it. We didn't think

[3:12:14] about it as a group. >> We didn't do anything,

[3:12:18] » but not anything on paper, but it sure gave me time to think about it. I was

[3:12:22] new. You was new on the board. Okay. So, so this this solar text amendment

[3:12:30] 60 days was spent by this um 60 days passed for this consulting firm on this

[3:12:36] subject. But we're going to now

[3:12:40] conclude everything on this entire complex matter and how many hours would

[3:12:47] we have? >> So, Mr. Tyson, if I may, I think you're

[3:12:49] missing the point. I if if I can be so bold, it sounds like you all are willing

[3:12:53] to deny this to give yourself more time. We were given a 100 days. We can't very

[3:12:59] well consult everybody that lives in Bodatak County, the four of you, anybody

[3:13:04] that has an interest in a solar facility, and then present something to

[3:13:06] you in 100 days. This is about as good as it's going to get in 100 days. That's

[3:13:10] why we went with a consultant to who knows the state code to provide changes

[3:13:14] to the this ordinance. >> Yes. But if you came to the comm

[3:13:18] commission and said, "Hey, this might be a good way to do it. Why

[3:13:23] don't you let us bring in a >> because I'm not sitting around looking

[3:13:27] for just solar." Do you know do you misinterpret what our job is? Do you not

[3:13:31] realize that we're doing reviews and answering phone calls and

[3:13:35] » I I I know your job is very important and you got a lot of important issues on

[3:13:39] your docket and all of that, but we're dealing on one issue here that's

[3:13:43] transformative for the entire county. need to have more time to consider this

[3:13:46] issue. You keep trying to say that this is going to happen in 10 minutes. That's

[3:13:50] not what's happening. Everybody up here wants to give you specifically more

[3:13:54] time. Why are you trying to throw it back in our faces?

[3:13:58] » I am trying to understand after today's meeting what's going to happen, what's

[3:14:03] going to allow us to basically work on this.

[3:14:06] » It seems like nothing will happen until we get together next month in a work

[3:14:10] session. >> No, that's not Hold up. Time out. That's

[3:14:13] not what I said. If between now and September, all of us individually review

[3:14:19] this and make our comments and submit them to staff. If you want them to come

[3:14:24] through me, I can submit them to staff. Um, it doesn't matter. Make your

[3:14:30] individual comments, submit it to staff. They're going to compile an entire

[3:14:34] document of all those comments just like we did when we reviewed the

[3:14:38] comprehensive plan. That's going to happen in the next 30 days. So the

[3:14:41] faster you get your comments to staff, the more they can compile them for us.

[3:14:45] Then at that work session, we'll figure out what we want to do. Perhaps we will

[3:14:49] solicit a public input by survey. Maybe we will do it another way. Then we will

[3:14:55] plan a work session in October. Perhaps we will be to a point we can

[3:14:59] finalize something. Perhaps we won't. But to Mr. Lucas's point, if we do ask

[3:15:04] for the end of the year, that gives us flexibility instead of I was trying to

[3:15:08] pigeon hole us and do 120 days, >> say to the end of the year, it gives us

[3:15:12] a lot more flexibility. >> And we already setting aside an entire

[3:15:16] meeting on in September to have this compiled what you what we each have and

[3:15:22] go over it and we can discuss each one of these items. Most of the comments

[3:15:26] that we're hearing we're all in agreement with. We don't I mean that's

[3:15:29] why staff talked to the Berkeley group and said make it as strict as you can

[3:15:33] because we did give them that guidance as a group and said we want it we don't

[3:15:39] want it to be halfhazard and go anywhere. We're all in favor of not

[3:15:44] having our county covered with solar power panels. I mean but is there a

[3:15:50] place for them? And how do you do it? If the state is now making us do certain

[3:15:55] requirements, we do have to change our code to make that match. That's not an

[3:16:00] option. It's you have to do it. Now, that's why we suggested changing the

[3:16:05] code colors to this has to be done. If it's a has to be done, it has to be

[3:16:11] done. I don't like some of the has to be done. I didn't vote for that bill, but

[3:16:16] it has been voted on and we have to change our code and make it match up

[3:16:20] with state code. It is what it is. There's a lot of other things that we

[3:16:25] can talk about as far as how to improve this to make it more stringent if that's

[3:16:30] our preference and that is certainly mine, but again, we need to start from

[3:16:38] somewhere. And I don't know that I could have gone through every inch of this

[3:16:41] code like that um group did and give me these specific details to one change the

[3:16:48] code to match up with what it's supposed to legally do and two add some very good

[3:16:53] insight and some good planning I think in here but we can make it better if we

[3:16:57] take the time to look at it. Madam Chair, may I provide a little bit

[3:17:03] of context and clarification because I it might be valid for the folks who are

[3:17:08] new on the planning commission as well as some of the folks in the audience to

[3:17:11] understand. The way that we are going about this text amendment is not

[3:17:15] typical. It is not how we normally do things. It is not how I would have

[3:17:19] wanted to do things. Um I haven't seen the draft amendments that were presented

[3:17:23] to the board of supervisors. I have it did not come through the planning

[3:17:28] commission by way of a formal file through staff the way text amendments

[3:17:33] are typically filed. Attorneys talk to attorneys.

[3:17:37] Planners talk to planners. Planners hope to talk to citizens. So there is

[3:17:41] information that we did not have to be able to share it with you. Um so so I

[3:17:47] just want you to know that what we did was take the best information that we

[3:17:52] had. We also took what we got everything from the board packet and sent to the

[3:17:57] Berkeley group. Another point of clarification, there apparently there

[3:18:00] must be multiple Berkeley groups out there because the one that we are using

[3:18:04] does not advocate for solar. They are purely work with public bodies and local

[3:18:09] governments. So I would like to get the folks who have that information to help

[3:18:13] me understand what what is what we're seeing. I don't want to clarify that

[3:18:18] misconception if that is existing and if there is a problem then we want to get

[3:18:21] to the bottom of it for sure. Um and we want to be able to provide the

[3:18:26] opportunity for Mr. Williamson or you know anybody in the audience or any of

[3:18:31] you all to work with us the way that we would like you all to come and and we

[3:18:37] can set up two by two meetings. we we can work to with the Berkeley group to

[3:18:42] help make this process the way that you want it to be so that at the end of the

[3:18:45] day you get the best re ordinance that you all feel comfortable recommending

[3:18:49] that the board can then ultimately you know make a decision on and we're here

[3:18:53] for that but we are as Mr. McCoy, you know, has spoken responsible for

[3:19:00] hundreds of things that we do day-to-day. And so using a group that we

[3:19:03] already have on retainer, that we already consult with, that we already

[3:19:08] contract with was the only way we were going to be able to get anything to you

[3:19:12] all within that 100 day timeline at all. And so we really were hoping that we

[3:19:15] were doing the best thing at the time. And I wanted you all to understand how

[3:19:19] we got here. But it is very different from how we've ever gotten here before.

[3:19:23] And if there's an opportunity for us to get back to the public process to start

[3:19:27] to have these conversations, have the folks who have reached out and

[3:19:30] communicated with others also communicate with us help you get that

[3:19:34] information. Utilize the Berkeley Group as a tool to do that. Um, I think that

[3:19:39] that might go a long way to get to the end. And again, not something that we

[3:19:43] could have done in 100 days for sure. >> Thank you for that.

[3:19:47] I will now entertain a motion on this package.

[3:19:51] And I could make the motion that we um deny the current um

[3:19:57] » it's up there now. >> Oh, thank you. Um let's see. I move that

[3:20:02] the text amendments to the BA County zoning ordinance be forward to the board

[3:20:04] of supervisors with the recommendation of denial. Um based on zoning ordinance

[3:20:09] article 5, division six, the following items have not been satisfied and that

[3:20:14] is that we didn't have enough time. Um we are asking for a recommend or a um

[3:20:21] » extension >> extension of our decision to um also

[3:20:27] potentially extend the review of the comprehensive plan section as well and

[3:20:32] make that before the end of the year as opposed to the November 30th deadline.

[3:20:37] » Thank you. Is there a second? >> I second it.

[3:20:40] » Second by Mr. Hartman. >> All in favor say I. I opposed. Motion

[3:20:48] carries unanimously. Um, next item is a comment from Miss

[3:20:54] Beasley because she's been wrapped up in a blanket all night and I too am

[3:20:58] freezing. So,

[3:21:16] » okay. >> What is it?

[3:21:19] » I think >> it's working now. Okay.

[3:21:24] All right. Jane Beasley, Amsterdam. I was so excited this evening to address

[3:21:29] you all and I thought it was just going to come under public comments and agenda

[3:21:34] items and there wasn't an agenda there and I hadn't previewed so I'm guilty. Um

[3:21:41] I just want to thank you all. Um you're giving citizens hope. It's nothing wrong

[3:21:48] with disagreeing. Debate it just like you did in the last

[3:21:53] meeting. Yes, that was a healthy discussion. But that's okay. You all got

[3:21:58] through it and so forth and we appreciate it.

[3:22:04] I find it appalling what Mark So I'm so basically what I said tonight and go on

[3:22:11] complimenting you is out of the out the window. I find it appalling what Mark

[3:22:16] shared with us tonight. And I find it even more appalling that

[3:22:22] the county can keep him from contacting anyone in county government.

[3:22:30] I I just don't get that. This is the United States of America for

[3:22:35] crying out loud and to have a deputy come in there intimidate him like they

[3:22:40] did. We all witnessed it. We saw it. That's not the democracy that we want

[3:22:48] and certainly not what we want here in Bodtat County. And then

[3:22:52] » Hey, thank you, Miss Beasley. I'm I'm sorry. I can't I we can't continue to

[3:22:57] talk about that because I'm sorry. Thank you. I appreciate that, but um yeah, we

[3:23:05] don't we don't we don't have open general comments in the planning

[3:23:08] commission meeting. It's okay. I took sympathy cuz I you know, you were

[3:23:13] freezing. Um

[3:23:17] um I think that is the end of Yes, that's the end of our agenda. Um anybody

[3:23:25] have a motion for adjournment? >> Sure.

[3:23:27] » Motion to >> motion by Mr.

[3:23:30] » Second. >> Mr. Hartman, second by Mr. Lucas. All in

[3:23:33] favor say I. I. Opposed. Thank you. Carries unanimously. Thanks everybody

[3:23:38] for sticking out in a long meeting.

Planning Commission Meeting - Aug 2026

Transcript