[0:01] The silence before we get the meeting started.

[0:16] All right, I call this meeting at the Campbell County Planning Commission to order at this time. It is seven o'clock. You know, please join me. Oh, no, good to get. Please join me in a flag. I pledge allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

[0:51] We have our meeting minutes for last month, do

[1:05] we have to review them?

[1:07] All right. So everybody have the meeting minutes from last month? Are there any changes

[1:14] or questions or revisions?

[1:16] Nope.

[1:17] I have a motion to approve.

[1:19] Thank you.

[1:20] All right. There you go.

[1:26] First up is the rezoning request for PL 26-118 by Bobby Wompler of engineering concepts

[1:35] In agent for RP Frail & Company LLC, do you have a staff report, Kate?

[1:45] Thank you Madam Chair.

[1:46] This is rezoning request PL-266-118 to rezone approximately 64.47 acres from agricultural

[1:54] to residential single family to allow for 138 lots of division.

[2:00] Property is located at the intersection of Depot Road and English Tavern Road and further

[2:05] identified as tax number 23-A-70. PEC previously met on June 2nd to discuss this project and the

[2:13] comments from that meeting are included in your packet. There are two proposed entrances,

[2:18] one off of English Tavern Road and the other off of Depot Road. A traffic analysis from 2024 was

[2:26] submitted as part of the application and VDOT has requested to receive an updated study.

[2:31] The property would be served by public water and sewer.

[2:36] The area served by the yellow branch and

[2:38] rustberg elementary schools,

[2:40] rustberg middle school and rustberg high school.

[2:43] The information listed in your packet is from the previous school year enrollment information

[2:47] for the current school year was provided as a supplemental ID to your seats.

[2:52] Project is in an area located, or excuse me, is designated as medium to high density residential.

[2:57] and the request is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

[3:02] Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval staff,

[3:05] recommends including the condition that the site be used in general conformance,

[3:09] as shown on the site plan with that happy to answer any questions.

[3:15] Any questions for staff?

[3:21] Is the applicant or their representative present?

[3:25] Yes.

[3:26] Okay.

[3:27] State your name and your address for the record.

[3:30] Okay. My name is Andrew Falson. I'm not Bobby Wampler. I'm here on his behalf. I'm with engineering concepts and my address is 3, 2, 3, 5, Center Set Street, Runoff, Virginia.

[3:45] So I just wanted to thank you for that introduction. I just wanted to bring up one little thing. I'm here to answer technical questions on behalf of our applicant.

[3:55] In 2024, RPF land company considered this rezoning at that time, it had more intensive

[4:02] use of multi-family, single-family detached and town homes.

[4:08] Through that process, we learned that that was not deemed an appropriate intensive use

[4:13] at that time by the county, so that was withdrawn.

[4:16] Since then, they focused their efforts on the allure multi-family projects, kind of just

[4:21] down the road from there.

[4:23] But that has not addressed the need for single-family housing in the county.

[4:27] So, at this time, the plan you see we've removed all town homes and multi-family.

[4:33] So, it's only single-family detached.

[4:36] And there is some developer will land on the property, but there is no proposal for anything

[4:43] that interior portion of the property at this time.

[4:46] So, be glad to answer any technical questions you guys might have.

[4:53] The

[4:56] traffic studies that were done, I didn't see that any of them look to be current up to date.

[5:03] They look like old data that we'd seen before.

[5:06] Yes, that is correct. So, we are currently working with V.

[5:11] It's looking like we may be actually below the TI-A thresholds,

[5:15] But there we're working closely with them to figure out what, if any, studies are needed

[5:21] for this project and then subsequently we'll provide any improvements required that's

[5:28] generated from those studies.

[5:32] Any time table on that traffic study?

[5:36] I believe that would have to be completed before the Board of Supervisors meeting if I'm

[5:41] recalling.

[5:42] So this sort of thing has been proposed for, and it looks just based on data that we have on hand right now, it looks like this project would double, you know, the traffic load on those roads.

[5:55] Yeah, it's done.

[5:56] And we have problems already.

[5:58] So the numbers in that the staff report are from the old TIA.

[6:03] And when we look at this previously, our numbers are going to be about half of that and then from then we've actually reduced it again. So I don't have.

[6:13] The staff board does not reflect updated numbers, but it would be less than what you're seeing there.

[6:19] And we will be studying that with V dot and whatever they need. We'll get that to them.

[6:26] Thank you.

[6:30] I got one then, if we're knowing that we've been right here where we're sitting now,

[6:38] and the big by-fall issue was traffic, and evidently you've made an effort, you say

[6:47] to adjust those numbers, and without us seeing it, I'd expect us to recommend to approve

[6:53] it.

[6:53] It's just a pig with lipstick on, it's the same thing we've solved.

[6:58] Sure.

[6:59] And the data that I saw was from such, you know, you used data from 2013, 2017, progress

[7:06] data.

[7:07] There's nothing in that area, like 2013, 14, 15, and to use that type of growth area and

[7:16] and try to put it down to 2026 to 2029 is crazy.

[7:23] That road, we as a group, you know, decided we were going to stop because it's not to the public benefit.

[7:32] I believe, this is my belief that to add more traffic to our places already,

[7:37] bad enough and then do not have the data that we need that is the most important thing to me

[7:46] anyway. I don't know but I don't know everybody at this group but it's the most important thing is

[7:50] the safety of that road. I know how bad that road is. My wife and stepdaughter just had a wreck on

[7:56] right where we'll head here a few years ago and it's just it's a bad area of the county and we

[8:04] And for my, just, you know, I just can't understand why you would come without the data that a reasonable

[8:14] company would say, I think they would need in order to convince this board to make a recommendation

[8:19] to the board of supervisors. Yes, you can go to the board of supervisors and you have the data

[8:23] and they are the final decision. I don't have any questions because there's nothing, I don't

[8:30] of nothing to ask, except for what we don't have.

[8:35] Okay.

[8:36] Yeah, I understand the concern with that.

[8:38] And I think the thought was that since they were moving the multi-family, that was taking away

[8:43] over half the trips from that project that we were addressing the reduction in the traffic will be

[8:49] because we're reducing the project by so much.

[8:51] I think that was the intent of the changes here.

[8:54] and then we do show some road improvements on this plan.

[8:59] I believe it's a right turn taper on English tab

[9:01] road to address the concerns of increased traffic.

[9:04] So we are trying to follow all the rules and regulations

[9:08] that the VDOT has put before us

[9:09] and to our knowledge we're meeting all the requirements

[9:12] that this project generates at this time.

[9:14] However, we are still in conversation with the VDOT

[9:17] to make sure that they have what they need.

[9:20] All right.

[9:22] We're here.

[9:25] Thank you.

[9:26] Anybody?

[9:28] I'm sorry.

[9:28] That's your fault.

[9:29] It doesn't mean it's anybody else?

[9:32] Stick around so we may have some other questions for you.

[9:35] Okay.

[9:36] Thank you.

[9:37] Is there anyone to speak in favor of this request?

[9:43] All right.

[9:44] Anyone to speak in opposition to this request?

[9:54] All right.

[9:55] Are you speaking just?

[9:56] If you speak as an individual, you get three minutes, if you're going to speak collectively

[10:03] as a larger group, you get a few minutes more. So, if you guys...

[10:12] I know. All right, come on out.

[10:14] Thank you for joining.

[10:15] Come on out.

[10:18] When you approach the podium, say your name and address for the record, thank you.

[10:25] My name is Daniel George. I live at 3660 Depot Road. I'm a new resident,

[10:30] it, moved in on September 15th, 2025, came down by the grace of God, the Served God and

[10:36] brought me here. Took me two weeks to move from where I was to here, made a decision

[10:41] to buy that home after driving down the Po Road. It's a beautiful country road, rolling

[10:46] hills, farmlands, small houses, big houses, nothing extravagant. However, there is a good

[10:55] bit of traffic as the gentleman pointed out. I can't imagine if you took one third of

[10:59] the proposed houses.

[11:00] Let's just say 40 more cars that put them at the corner of tavern road and depot road.

[11:06] How that's going to be a benefit to that area at all.

[11:10] But a bigger question to me, two questions, number one, why do they not want to build in

[11:14] the middle when they're at them, build everywhere else?

[11:17] Second, where would they get all the water for these houses?

[11:23] I've been told and I haven't experienced this yet, thank God that the wells in the area

[11:27] go dry sometimes and people have to ask for water from other people.

[11:31] That doesn't make a lot of sense for going up to 140 more houses across the street.

[11:36] There's one question I got.

[11:38] Thank you.

[11:40] Next up,

[11:45] again, when you get to the podium, please state your name and address.

[11:48] Name

[11:52] is AJ Starling.

[11:54] I live at 3733 Depot Road.

[11:56] I'm right there on the corner of Tavern and Depot.

[12:02] I'm speaking tonight to urge you to vote no on this rezoning request.

[12:06] First, I'd like to talk about the cost of community services.

[12:11] Study after study has shown us one thing, that residential development costs, local governments,

[12:17] more in services than they ever generate in property taxes.

[12:20] This will put a strain on our school system, Sheriff Department, Fire and EMS, which are working

[12:25] primarily on volunteers, and of course, our rural roads.

[12:31] I've got a study here from 2022 from Elmer County to summarize very quickly its population

[12:39] grew by 35% from 2000 to 2020.

[12:42] At the end of that year, they suffered a budget deficit of approximately $7 million directly

[12:49] relating to the residential development and the cost of community services.

[12:57] The lower right across the road has not been finished yet.

[13:00] We haven't been able to fully absorb the impact that this will have on the community

[13:05] infrastructure having multiple unfinished residential properties in such close proximity

[13:10] brings me back to my first point.

[13:15] The rural roads are not designed for hundreds of concentrated daily trips without costly road

[13:21] food widening, safety upgrades, and expanded intersections we are inviting severe traffic congestion in heightened collision risks.

[13:32] Third is this proposal, I believe, is a perfect example of spot zoning.

[13:39] Carving out an agricultural parcel for high-density residential development only benefits one person, or in this case, Harpy Frailin, and does not provide any benefit to the community.

[13:50] objectively speaking in this year or five years down the road.

[13:55] Keep in mind that we already have undeveloped land that is already

[13:58] owned for residential use in the area.

[14:02] I'm all for growth in our community, but this is not the way to do it.

[14:07] I ask you to protect our budget, our infrastructure, and our public safety, and vote no on this proposal.

[14:12] Thank you for your time.

[14:13] Thank you.

[14:17] Next.

[14:29] My name is Matt Sales.

[14:30] I live at Two-Bit Road in Edmonton. I'm actually here on behalf of my parents and I'm who live on Suburban Road.

[14:38] Like you, I'm having a sense of deja vu tonight as I stood at this podium before you all in October of 2024.

[14:47] At that time, this board denied this request in a four to one vote.

[14:53] Two months later, it was denied by the Board of Supervisors by a vote of five to two.

[15:00] So here we are, almost two years later, having the same conversation again. And I think the most important question that we can ask and height is what has materially changed. I recognize that there have been changes to this proposal since 2024, primarily with the removal of the multi-family component. But I think we all have to ask ourselves why that gap remains in this development.

[15:30] This property

[15:31] hasn't moved, English Tavern Road hasn't moved, and the transportation challenges facing

[15:39] English Tavern Road haven't gone away. In fact, in May of this year, V.Dot held a public

[15:46] meeting at Highland Heights Baptist Church to discuss proposed safety improvements to

[15:51] English Tavern Road. V.Dot is actively looking at congestion, safety, turning movements, and

[15:59] the ability of this corridor to accommodate continued growth.

[16:04] So I think the question becomes even more important.

[16:07] What has changed since 2024 that makes this development appropriate now?

[16:13] This rezoning request isn't just about the 64 acres.

[16:18] It's about the whole English tavern corridor and the cumulative impact of continued development

[16:24] along that corridor.

[16:26] By approving another 138 houses, which is an increase of single-family homes from 2024,

[16:34] while VDOT is still working to identify and address safety and congestion concerns,

[16:41] I believe we were putting the cart before the horse.

[16:44] I ask that you once again deny this request, thank you.

[16:52] Anyone else?

[16:56] Madam Chair, before you close the public comment, I did receive one to read into the record.

[17:00] Thank you.

[17:01] says Mary right at 2169 suburban road, this letter is required to the request to rezone

[17:06] property on English to have in road and depot road from agriculture to single family and

[17:11] to urge you to deny this request.

[17:13] I have lived my 82 years of life in this community, we chose to raise our family at this location

[17:18] because of the peace and solitude the agricultural setting offered.

[17:22] This community represents many residents whose families have resided here for generations.

[17:27] Unfortunately, over this year, so-called development and progress plans have encroached upon these

[17:31] streams of peace and quiet. To say the least, we've had enough of development and progress.

[17:36] We must ask ourselves, are we really making positive progress? Or are we just creating a

[17:40] whole new set of costly problems for the current residents in the entire county?

[17:45] Please consider the following areas of concern that surely outweigh the pluses for rezoning this

[17:49] parcel of land overcrowding in our schools. As a retired teacher, I can assure you that

[17:54] that children are then taking the school

[17:55] with a whole new set of learning and behavioral problems

[17:58] that have been uncommon in the past.

[18:00] Most of our schools are already at enrollment capacity.

[18:03] Why would you even think of expanding the enrollment

[18:05] with a merit of problems that will surely come

[18:08] with such an increment?

[18:10] I think that's supposed to be increasing numbers.

[18:12] The quality of construction of such housing developments

[18:15] is in no way represents the fine craftsmanship.

[18:18] Most often manufactured building materials

[18:20] are used and the structures are heardly built as any fire fighter and he will confirm that such homes

[18:26] are tender box in the event of a fire. Such homes will not stand the test of time as the structure

[18:31] deteriorates so gives the quality of the community. The negative environmental impact on our

[18:38] community is huge. Consider the drain on the water and sewage supply can have grave consequences

[18:43] for the entire county. Water is a finite resource that must be taken into account the runoff

[18:48] from such housing development negatively impacts the watershed must we cover every inch of our land with concrete and asphalt loss of farm and forest land has an unfortunate impact on everyone we are more dependent than ever before on farms as source of food for our very survival surely you must be aware of the importance of trees to overall health of the air we breathe our farm and forest lands provide homes for wildlife that are important in our world do you really want these farms and forest lands to become a thing of the past.

[19:18] Traffic concerns, studies have been done on the roads in this community, and yes,

[19:23] a plan is being looked at as a solution to the problem, so we know the roadways are in no way

[19:27] appropriate for the heavy volume of traffic we now experience. However, that does not address

[19:31] the blatant disregard for basic highways, safe driving practices. As the population has increased

[19:37] in this community, so have the instances of speeding failure to acknowledge stop signs passing

[19:42] on double lines and other bad driving practices. No amount of improvement on the roads will stop this

[19:47] bad behavior. While I'm aware that increasing tax revenue is part of your job protecting the

[19:52] rights and safety of citizens of this county is also important. Please ask yourself at the tax

[19:57] dollars you dream of bringing into Campbell County or worth the trade-off for all the unpleasantness

[20:02] such development will bring about. Actually, in the long run, you will be creating more loss

[20:07] in tax dollars due to the problem C's expansions will bring out. I urge you to vote no on the

[20:12] rezoning issue. Thank you.

[20:17] All right. We're going to close the public portion and start the discussion

[20:21] up here since this is in the Rustberg electric district. Oh, gee, is there, oh, you're right. Good

[20:30] all. Thank you. Can you accept to you? Is there anything you'd like to say?

[20:35] Yes. So just to address

[20:38] some of the concerns that I've mentioned, one was the water. This will be planned for a public water

[20:43] extension of English to have a road so there should be no impact anybody's

[20:47] wells in the surrounding area. Regarding the traffic and we do understand this

[20:51] is a very important issue to the community. We're ready to work with whatever

[20:56] V.NET's from us for studies or whatever those studies may trigger whether it's

[21:03] turn lanes, tapers, widening whatever's required by the client or our client is

[21:09] ready to proceed with those things. So that's all I have now we're going to close

[21:18] the public portion. No, I'm sorry.

[21:25] I'm sorry. We're going to start I guess I'll lead

[21:30] the discussion since Commissioner Condrie's not here.

[21:39] I think I was the only one that

[21:42] voted for this initially, and while I still think that we need more single-family housing,

[21:52] I think that this is just not completely put together, I don't think it's approval

[22:00] the way that it is.

[22:02] There are still too many variables with the, primarily, the traffic flow.

[22:07] So that's the thing that concerns me, and I know V.t's trying to do their studies to

[22:18] make that whole court or safer, but I'm not sure that this development is going to coincide

[22:29] with those plans coming to fruition.

[22:33] That's just my thoughts.

[22:35] Anybody else?

[22:37] We're going to talk about it first.

[22:38] No, you need a motion to discuss it.

[22:41] Do we need a motion to discuss it?

[22:42] Yes.

[22:43] All right, I apologize.

[22:45] Yes, you have to have a motion of the second to discuss it.

[22:48] Okay, do I have a motion to discuss everything I just said?

[22:51] Second.

[22:53] Thank you.

[22:54] Do I have to say it again?

[22:56] No.

[22:56] Okay, good.

[22:57] You can make comments.

[22:59] You're speaking for more comments.

[23:00] Okay, thank you.

[23:01] Anybody else?

[23:03] Right, well, while it's encouraging that V.Dod is finally

[23:07] addressing some public comment, what sort of improvements are necessary for an English

[23:12] chairman wrote area. It's plain to see that since the last traffic study was completed,

[23:20] the traffic has just increased and that any changes that might come from or any proposals

[23:37] from now. So it takes time to do this sort of thing. So I really believe at this time that any further

[23:43] expansion in this area would be inappropriate.

[23:49] I have to agree with John. Everybody that spoke,

[23:54] the common denominator was traffic. The common denominator was traffic. And although the developers

[24:02] have made a gesture towards this, it's just some concerning things like the void in the middle.

[24:11] If we're not going to put residential, heavy residential there, then why aren't we

[24:19] building something there now?

[24:21] Even if that's so, as I said, this committee has a whole back, I think even before this

[24:29] one, decided that it was best for the public welfare and safety of the public in that area

[24:37] and not to overload this area anymore.

[24:41] And you know, a lot of these, a lot of things

[24:44] that people brought up, they can fix those,

[24:47] like CCUSA and can fix the water and that.

[24:52] But VDOT, there's nobody in this room

[24:55] that has any pool with VDOT, I can guarantee it.

[24:58] And I know a lot of, but they work at a snail's pace,

[25:02] which is their own pace.

[25:03] If they had a recommendation that they were going to start doing something to English tavern

[25:09] next year, it may be a little different than the thought pattern.

[25:15] But until that happens, I can't see anything there, and even though it would be in a little

[25:22] butter, as I said, it's just a pig or lipstick, it's the same thing we've got just a little

[25:35] Start down you David. I like the idea of seeing a family homes. I think we need more of them

[25:41] I think it fits into our comprehensive plan

[25:44] But the traffic is what concerns me and I think of the safety and

[25:50] The challenge is is the timing of this versus when and it could be a year could be five years V dot and that's a challenge

[25:58] I

[26:00] I mean, I agree. I think that the reduction is definitely something that we like to see

[26:07] just from volume standpoint. When we discuss the traffic concerns previously, so that's

[26:13] a step in the right direction, but there's still a lot of work that is going to have to be

[26:17] done before I'm comfortable with that.

[26:19] Robert?

[26:21] I agree with most of the board. I feel that traffic is an issue and without V.

[26:28] thoughts input into the matter. I think it's not a very good idea to to approve this.

[26:39] One more thing. We got a little little deja vu running here. If you remember, you know,

[26:44] I think everybody in the county wants to see more single family dwelling. But we had the same issue

[26:50] up on Callahan Road in 24 there, where they were going to build single families. And everybody's

[26:58] happy that someone was putting the development in, but it was so concentrated and so much,

[27:02] it put so much pressure on the road system, that it was not the right time or the not the

[27:07] right time.

[27:08] We're kind of at the same point here, you know, what comes first, chicken at the egg or

[27:14] the road comes first for the development.

[27:16] It's going to have to, we just, we have overloaded that maybe at our, you know, blindness on all

[27:24] all the developments beforehand. Maybe we should have looked at this a little earlier, but

[27:29] we're here now, and we need to look at the general public safety on that roadway. Thank you.

[27:39] I think we thought the beat-out might have moved a little faster.

[27:43] Yeah, so much what we thought.

[27:45] Right.

[27:45] All right.

[27:46] All right.

[27:47] So, I am going to make a motion that we deny this request.

[27:56] Do I have a second?

[27:58] A second.

[27:59] Any opposed?

[28:01] All in favor, say aye.

[28:03] All right.

[28:04] All right.

[28:05] I know I got it backwards.

[28:06] There you go.

[28:07] The motion is to deny.

[28:08] The motion is to deny, but we are not the final decision.

[28:12] and it goes before the Board of Supervisors next month.

[28:18] The Board will begin Tuesday.

[28:24] Well, I'm sorry.

[28:26] It's on your paperwork, so we're...

[28:28] Oh, yeah, October...

[28:33] What were we getting?

[28:35] The Board will hear this at their October 6 meeting.

[28:38] Thank you, Kate.

[28:40] October 6.

[28:40] All right.

[28:41] There you go.

[28:42] All right.

[28:43] Moving on.

[28:43] special

[28:49] use permit request PL-26156 by Tara Phillips.

[28:55] Thank you Madam Chair. This is request PL-266-156 for a special use permit to allow for the

[29:01] keeping of agricultural animals on properties that is currently zone residential

[29:05] single family. Property is located at 5968 Dearborn Road and is further identified as parcels 41D-1-14

[29:14] 15 and 15 containing a total of approximately 27 acres.

[29:19] The area is primarily agricultural and residential in nature and is designated as transitional

[29:25] per the current comprehensive plan.

[29:27] The applicant has stated that they intend to keep chickens in sheep on the property.

[29:32] Should the Planning Commission recommend approval, staff recommends including the condition that

[29:36] the site be used in general conformance as described in their narrative.

[29:40] With that, happy to answer any questions.

[29:41] questions.

[29:45] The only question I haven't forgive me for not remembering this, but once we approve or

[29:50] once a special use permit is approved, it stays with the property.

[29:55] That is correct.

[29:56] and less the use ceases for two years or more.

[30:00] Or in which case it expires. Got it. Any other questions for staff? The applicant present? Yes.

[30:14] Okay. Name and address? Tara Phillips, 5968 Dearborn Road in Evington.

[30:22] And this is Isla, our daughter Isla. Hi, I'm Isla Phillips. Hello.

[30:27] Why are you here? We're here to ask if our special use permit would be accepted to bring our small flock of

[30:37] hair sheep and chickens so that they could come to our new 27 acre property.

[30:47] Very good. Anybody have questions for them?

[30:50] What is your intentions on the number?

[30:53] I'm so sorry. I'm the number of sheep and number of sheep.

[30:55] Number of sheep. Right now we have a flock of eight sheep at our farm in

[31:00] Flockier County, Virginia. And we'll be giving two of those sheep away.

[31:04] And this flock of six sheep is, I've grown so close to them over the past six years.

[31:09] They're honestly like house pets to me but outdoors of course and I just love all of them

[31:16] and I'd like to bring them with us as we move and chickens.

[31:21] No more than I believe it's 40 chickens.

[31:26] We love to have farm fresh eggs that will give to our family and neighboring communities

[31:30] and no roosters just hands to keep the population down as well.

[31:39] Well, right now, um, in for the past six years, we've been raising them for meat. Um, but right now we just have the flock of six, which are really just pets their hair sheep.

[31:49] So we don't have to shed or they shed themselves.

[31:52] We do not have to share them. They naturally let their hair loose in the spring and summer, and then they grow back in the winter.

[32:01] her. Yes, grounds maintenance for sure. They're like little lawn mowers. Honestly, it's so

[32:05] helpful. And that, that is it.

[32:13] Do you sell the meat or the eggs? We have at our farm

[32:17] in Flock here, but we are not processing these. This flock is her pet flock, so they will

[32:24] not be processed. They are just pets. So you don't, you don't intend to really expand the

[32:29] walk through just your pets now. Correct. Yes, sir.

[32:35] I'm assuming the chickens are just free

[32:37] rain, right? Yes, sir. They will be cooped up. We will have a chicken coop where they get cooped

[32:43] up at night. But yes, other than that, they will be free range.

[32:50] And I have nothing against roosters.

[32:54] Have you been attacked by one? Yes, I have. Yes. Good point. All right, any other questions?

[33:01] questions. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this

[33:09] request?

[33:13] Anyone to speak in opposition?

[33:18] All right. Saying none, we will close the public

[33:23] portion and have a motion to open discussion.

[33:27] in.

[33:32] Yes. I think it's appropriate use. It's a small number of chickens and a small number

[33:43] of sheep and 27 acres, so I'm supportive of it. It's a generous, precise piece of property

[33:50] Yeah, such a small number of, you know, animals too, it's, you know,

[33:55] I like it.

[33:57] Yeah, I have a motion.

[34:01] We don't have any motion.

[34:03] Oh, yeah, sorry.

[34:05] A motion to recommend approval of PL26156 for a special use permit.

[34:10] Second.

[34:12] All right.

[34:12] Continue the discussion or go to a vote.

[34:16] Anybody got anything to say?

[34:21] All those in favor say aye.

[34:24] Opposed.

[34:25] Here you go.

[34:26] You got it.

[34:28] Now we're not.

[34:30] You don't got it.

[34:31] You just got it here.

[34:33] You got to go back in October.

[34:37] Sixth.

[34:37] Thank you.

[34:38] Do it all again.

[34:40] Good luck.

[34:40] Thank you.

[34:45] All right.

[34:49] Oh, there it is.

[34:50] Right there.

[34:51] Big bold letters.

[34:52] October six.

[34:53] All right.

[34:54] Our next scheduled meeting is on September 28th.

[34:59] Everybody gonna be here?

[35:00] Anybody know they're gonna be out?

[35:02] I will be absent on vacation.

[35:04] Oh, okay.

[35:05] Yeah.

[35:05] You know what?

[35:06] I might be on too.

[35:07] I might too.

[35:09] I might.

[35:09] Oh, well heck, if y'all are all out.

[35:13] I'll take care of that in the country.

[35:15] I'll confirm that this week.

[35:17] Okay.

[35:18] Well, get with Kate and let her know.

[35:20] I don't know what we do.

[35:21] I'm not good.

[35:23] Okay.

[35:24] Please let me know your availability and we can reschedule if needs be.

[35:29] September 28th.

[35:30] September 28th.

[35:31] September 28th.

[35:33] Did I?

[35:34] I probably did.

[35:35] Yeah.

[35:36] All right.

[35:37] Any other business?

[35:38] I got something.

[35:39] Just just this just information for the board.

[35:42] We had a request of for a gentleman to speak to the board of a matter that was not in front

[35:48] of us that may be coming in the future. And as a chair, I did not it because I didn't feel

[35:56] it was appropriate to come up and for him to address this board when nothing was in front

[36:02] of us on that matter. I just wanted to inform you all of that. So, if you happen to get into

[36:10] a discussion, you'll know that, wow, we did it. Every member of the public is willing to speak,

[36:16] We'll listen to anybody that comes up, but it has to be appropriate time.

[36:21] There's no need in telling us it's going to rain tomorrow if we're going to be inside.

[36:26] So we just have to wait till appropriate time for a lot of things and that was not the time for that discussion.

[36:33] Already?

[36:34] All right.

[36:34] With no further businesses or emotions to adjourn?

[36:38] Yes.

[36:39] All right.

[36:40] Second.

[36:42] All in favor say aye.

[36:43] Aye.

[36:43] Meeting is adjourned at 736.

Campbell County, VA meeting

Transcript