[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.