[0:07] Good evening. My pleasure to call to all of the December meeting of the Hanover County Planning Commission.

[0:14] We welcome those in attendance and we thank you for coming. Also, I'd like to remind everybody we are live streaming now.

[0:22] So, just make that notation in the next few meetings to everybody get used to it.

[0:27] Ms. Burton, would you please call the roll? Mr. Pageit.

[0:31] Mr. Bailey, Mrs. Iverson, Mr. Whitaker, Mrs. Wimborn, Chairman Low Better, thank you, Ms.

[0:40] Burton. The first item on tonight's agenda is the approval of the minutes of the November

[0:46] meeting. Are there any additions or corrections from the commission?

[0:52] The annan we will

[0:53] ask for a motion. So, move. Have a motion for approval from Mr. Page and do we have a second?

[1:00] Second, second button Mr. Wyrlico, call for the vote. All in favour, say aye.

[1:07] Aye. All in favour? Motion carries.

[1:13] Next on the agenda is consideration of agenda amendments.

[1:17] Are there any amendments by any other commissioners? Seeing none.

[1:23] I think we move to our next case. Mr. Bendler.

[1:30] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission.

[1:32] We do have two administrative cases for you tonight.

[1:36] They're both preliminary plata medmits.

[1:41] The first one is Hickory Hill Section 2, and these are Dan's district.

[1:45] And the second one is Honey Meadows.

[1:48] Take a homony district.

[1:52] These are, as I stated, these are both expedited.

[1:55] Therefore, we would like to give a presentation

[1:57] unless the commission requests one.

[1:59] We have talked to the Planning Commissioner for Hickory Hill Section 2.

[2:03] And we've talked to the applicant.

[2:05] And they are in agreement with the report with a change to the condition which is in front

[2:11] of all of you as written there and if you have any questions, I'm glad to answer that.

[2:19] Thank you, Mr. Bunder.

[2:20] Do we have any comments or questions from the Commission?

[2:25] Mr. Chairman, I'd just would like some clarification on why it was changed.

[2:31] Actually, Mr. Windborn, it needs to be changed because by being in there, it's not correct.

[2:38] This is a typical condition that we, for improvements to a subdivision, if they're not built with that section, they're bonded.

[2:45] But that's if they were required by proper or they are required in the district, which is our C here.

[2:54] Neither is the case here. The applicants have gotten with the Homeland Association.

[2:57] and they agreed to do this on their own, so we do not have the ability to bond for that.

[3:04] Excellent.

[3:05] Thank you.

[3:07] Thank you, Ms. Wimbledon.

[3:08] Any other questions from the Commission?

[3:11] Seeing none, I believe, Ms. Ourson, this is in your district.

[3:16] I move the approval of the preliminary plaque, amendment hit for Hill Section 2, with the

[3:30] The approval of the subject to the conditions recommended.

[3:35] Thank you, Ms. Allison.

[3:35] We have a motion by Ms. Allison.

[3:37] We have a second.

[3:39] I can find this one more.

[3:41] Any comments or questions from the Commission?

[3:43] Seeing no we'll call for the vote.

[3:45] All in favor say aye.

[3:48] Motion carries.

[3:50] Mr. Bunder.

[3:51] Next case.

[3:52] The meeting in the administrative case is Honey Meadows, Chick-a-Hommany Magisterle District.

[3:58] It is also a preliminary clap.

[3:59] We have talked with the Planning Commissioner from that district as well and the applicant

[4:04] has indicated they are okay with the report as it is.

[4:07] So if you would like a presentation, we would be glad to do it.

[4:09] Otherwise, if you have any questions, we'd be glad to entertain you.

[4:13] Thank you, Mr. Bender.

[4:15] Are there any questions, comments from the Commission?

[4:19] Say, and I must page and I believe this one is yours.

[4:21] When I hear Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning Commission approve

[4:26] preliminary plaque amendment.

[4:28] Dad, honey matters.

[4:31] We have a motion by Mr. Pageant, do we have a second?

[4:34] Second by Mr. Whitaker, any questions from the Commission?

[4:40] Do you know we're called for the vote?

[4:41] All in favor say aye.

[4:43] Aye. All opposed?

[4:45] Motion carries.

[4:50] Next item on the agenda is Missillanius.

[4:53] and we have the adoption of the 2016 regular meeting.

[5:07] Mr Chairman, I just want to state for the record that the schedule is going to be the same schedule

[5:17] that we've followed for several years. The regular meeting will be the third Thursday of the month,

[5:24] for the months of January through November,

[5:27] for the month of December will be the second Thursday of the month,

[5:31] and the continued meeting date if necessary due to weather or other conditions,

[5:38] which make holding a meeting hazardous.

[5:41] The continued meeting date would be the following Tuesday of the regular meeting schedule.

[5:49] And again, I just wanted to articulate that for the public record.

[5:55] So anybody watching understands what the schedule is.

[6:00] This will be posted to both the website and within the planning office.

[6:07] Mr. Chairman?

[6:08] Yes, Mr. Woodley.

[6:10] Yes, Mr. Woodley.

[6:10] If I could ask Mr. Merloni on the copy that I'm looking at, they have the continued

[6:14] day for the November meeting is type this Monday. Is that intended or a typo?

[6:24] I'm seeing that now.

[6:31] Mr. Chairman, I believe that the continued date usually is the following

[6:35] Monday rather than that Tuesday in that instance because the Board of Supervisors normally meets

[6:40] the Tuesday of that. That's correct. That would be the Tuesday before Thanksgiving, which is

[6:46] board meeting date so the plan commission meeting would be in conflict. Thank you, Mr. Walter.

[6:52] So the Monday is correct on this. So again, and that's a good point that Miss Windborne raises. So again, for the record.

[7:02] The continued meeting date will be the Tuesday following the regularly scheduled meeting with the exception of the month of November,

[7:10] where the continued date will be the Monday following the continued schedule.

[7:16] Thank you for pointing that out, Miss Windborne.

[7:20] Thank you, Miss Windborne.

[7:22] Just a while, please.

[7:25] Are there any other questions?

[7:27] We'll come back on the schedule.

[7:30] Seeing none, do we have a motion for approval?

[7:34] A motion to approve?

[7:35] Motion by Mr. Worker. Do we have a second by Mr. Pageant?

[7:40] Olen-Favorisayah, Olen-Favisayah, Olen-Favisayah.

[7:42] Aye, Olen-Favisayah, Olen-Favisayah, Olen-Favisayah.

[7:45] Motion carries.

[7:48] Next, Tony Moussalanius is the adoption of Resolution Armor

[7:52] and this, fortunately, Peace.

[7:55] And we have a motion to proceed with the resolution.

[8:01] Motion by Miss Windborne,

[8:03] who we have a second-byem of that service.

[8:06] Olen-Favisayah, Olen-Favisayah, Olen-Favisayah, Olen-Favisayah,

[8:10] motion carries. Are there any other comments from the Commission? If not, we'll take a short

[8:17] recess and reconvene at 7 o'clock.

[30:45] I pledge it to call to order the December monthly meeting of the Hanover County Planning Commission.

[30:51] We welcome you for joining us tonight, and I like to mention to everyone that was not here on the earlier meeting that we are live streaming.

[30:58] And with that said, Mr. Bailey, would you please listen to the pledge?

[31:09] and states of America, and to the republic for what it stands, one nation, under God, and it was a little bit of liberty in justice for

[31:23] us.

[31:24] Thank you, Mr. Vale. Moving along, there are copies of the meeting agenda located in the rear if you didn't get one as you came in.

[31:32] The public rules are on the back of the agenda and provides information for anyone that they want to speak tonight.

[31:38] The Planning Commission offers an opportunity at each meeting for anyone in attendance to

[31:43] speak to us on a planning issue that is not on tonight's agenda.

[31:47] If you are here to speak to us on a case that will be presented tonight, we ask that you

[31:52] wait and make your comments when the case is being discussed.

[31:56] I will now open Citizens' Time with anyone wishing to speak, please raise your hand.

[32:04] So, in no one we will close Citizens' Time.

[32:09] Next on the agenda will be tonight's public hearings, the rules for the public hearings on the backside of the agenda, and I'll call your attention to those and ask you in particular to note the time limits on items 2 through 6.

[32:23] We have six cases on tonight's agenda listed as expedited. This means there has been little or no public opposition to the request.

[32:31] The application is moved through the county process, and it is understood the applicant is an agreement with the staff recommendations.

[32:38] is there anyone here that would like to speak in opposition to any of these expedited

[32:42] cases so we will remove them from the expedited agenda?

[32:49] Seeing none, we will move forward. Mr Garmin, would you please present us with our first

[32:55] case?

[32:57] Yes, sir.

[33:00] Mr Chairman, excuse me, the speakers are going to have to come up to the podium.

[33:05] Yes, and per the record recording, okay. Thank you, Mr. Plain.

[33:16] Doctor, you guys said speaking of the objection of one of the three's earnings, correct?

[33:22] Of one of the expedited cases.

[33:25] Number six.

[33:31] Ms.

[33:35] Chairman, number six on the agenda would be Gatsy Properties.

[33:45] I'm speaking on behalf of my father, the land owner of,

[33:47] of checks and subdivision, did back up to Gatsy with a secondary thorough frayer.

[33:55] Okay.

[33:56] It's shown.

[33:58] I guess we're in objection to that.

[34:00] Connection.

[34:01] Okay.

[34:02] We have a private road, not a public road.

[34:08] I think maybe you're under the assumption it was a public road, maybe.

[34:15] Okay, and should we move this one from the expedited move it to the?

[34:21] Well, I believe Mr. Whitaker, who is handling this case, was going to come on on this?

[34:31] Yes, what I'd like to do, we're going to, I'm going to ask for the furl for this case for 30 days,

[34:37] because some stuff that came up in the last few days, Mrs. Peace, as you know,

[34:41] office and some things came up that I wouldn't aware of, so I'm asking for the furl,

[34:48] for this case tonight.

[34:49] Okay.

[34:50] So it won't be heard tonight.

[34:51] Oh, okay.

[34:52] If they agree with it.

[34:54] Okay.

[34:54] We have to make a motion.

[34:55] I'll approve that.

[34:56] We have to make a motion to that.

[34:59] Okay.

[34:59] Thank you.

[35:00] Thank you for coming forward.

[35:05] Okay, so we must examine if you want to proceed.

[35:09] Or we proceed with the expedited agenda. We do have another request from an applicant for deferral.

[35:16] It's for C-2314C, the big out-development company. I'll see and this is located in the Chica Harmony Magisterial District.

[35:30] Okay, are there any questions from the Commission on this?

[35:32] Mr. President, that Mr. President, I believe this is your district.

[35:36] Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[35:41] I move the K.C. 23-14 C. Bigger the Dalton company LLC be deferred until our January meeting.

[35:52] I have a motion by Mr. Pageant that we have a second.

[35:54] It's not going to be a second by Mr. Wordaker.

[35:57] Any questions from the commission?

[35:59] to see a note we're called for the vote. All in favour say aye. All opposed for granted.

[36:08] Mr. Chairman. Yes.

[36:09] I would like to ask for a deferral.

[36:14] We'll see 21-15 Gotzi properties incorporated until next month. Next schedule meeting.

[36:22] Thank you, Mr. Whitaker. Any questions from the commission on Mr. Whitaker's request?

[36:27] So

[36:30] we have a motion by Mr. Worker that we have a second.

[36:33] So we have a motion by Mr. Pageant.

[36:36] All in favor say aye.

[36:38] All opposed.

[36:48] Mr. Chairman, members of Planting Commission.

[36:50] First item on the expedited agenda is C594C amendment 115.

[36:56] Request by Charlene Orbatov and Living Trust.

[37:00] It's in the Tangal Oaks subdivision.

[37:02] It's a request to amend the proffers that were approved with rezoning request C594.

[37:10] So located on G-Pin 8705507334 currently zoned R2C single-family residential district

[37:19] with conditions.

[37:21] So located on the north line of Tangled Ridge Drive, approximately 600 feet east of its intersection

[37:27] with Tangled Oak Drive.

[37:29] The probe posed zoning amendment would amend the cash

[37:33] proffer.

[37:34] This is located in the McCannisville Magisterial District.

[37:40] Staff does recommend approvals subject to the proffer submitted, which are in accordance

[37:44] with the board's adopted transportation policy.

[37:47] Be happy to address any questions you may have on this case.

[37:51] Thank you, Mr. Garmin, or any questions from the commission.

[37:55] Seeing none will open the floor for the public hearing, is the applicant present?

[38:03] Since the applicant is not present, we will assume that they are in agreement.

[38:08] Is there anyone here that would like to speak for against this case?

[38:20] Mr. Chairman, once again, the speakers are going to have to come to the podium to ask the questions.

[38:28] Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[38:31] Please state your name and your district, please.

[38:34] It's James Ballinger, and I live off Eleanor Drive, I'm not sure what district.

[38:39] I was notified for this.

[38:41] Okay.

[38:41] Thank you.

[38:43] My question was with respect to the zoning change from R2C.

[38:48] I just don't know what it changes with respect to that property that's near my home.

[38:54] Mr. Garmin, if you want to.

[38:56] It's a cash proper amendment.

[38:59] When the applicant originally rezoned this property, there was one amount.

[39:03] The board adopted a new policy where they gave the applicant's opportunity to reduce that cash

[39:08] profit amount, and that's what the zoning request amendment is.

[39:13] It's no change to the property.

[39:14] It's actually the amount that's paid at the time of a certificate of occupancy when the

[39:19] house is constructed.

[39:25] Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this case?

[39:29] Seeing none who are closed, the public hearing, doing the commissioners have any comments.

[39:37] Mr. Whitaker, we'll turn this over to you.

[39:40] Okay, I'd like to recommend approval for C-Dash 5-94C, Sharlene Art, Beethoven, Living Trust,

[39:48] subject to the proper date of November 20th, 2015.

[39:52] Thank you, Mr. Whitaker.

[39:53] We have a motion about Mr. Whitaker that we have a second.

[39:56] Second.

[39:57] Second by Mr. Bailey.

[40:00] I'm going to come to questions from the commission. Seeing none, we're called for the vote. All in favour, say aye. Aye, aye, all of those motion passes. Mr. Garmin, next case.

[40:12] The next item, C. 2915C, Sheila Fleming. It's a request to reason from A1 agricultural to AR6 agricultural residential with conditions.

[40:22] on GPM 7708, 065567, consists of approximately 5.77 acres, so located on the east line

[40:32] of Watkins Road, approximately 1,150 feet north of its intersection with Dogwood Trail Road.

[40:41] So, object property is designated on the general annual use plan map as agricultural.

[40:45] Post-Zoning Amendment would permit one additional family law, one additional lot for a family member.

[40:53] Staff does recommend approval subject to the Prophors and conceptual plan with revisions as recommended.

[41:00] And I will advise the Commission that the applicant has revised that conceptual plan.

[41:06] Just the Prophors need to be changed to reflect the revision date on that plan.

[41:15] I'm not sure it was a recent week submitted conceptual plan with the change that was recommended by staff.

[41:23] And on the proffers, they just need to reference that revision date.

[41:29] Thank you, Mr. Governor. Are there any questions from the commission?

[41:34] to know we'll open the floor for the public hearing, is the applicant present?

[41:42] Did I hear yes?

[41:43] Yes, ma'am.

[41:49] Please state your name and your district.

[41:52] Are you?

[41:53] Ms. Prior.

[41:54] And you're from South Island District.

[41:57] Thank you.

[41:58] And you are in agreement with the staff report.

[42:01] Yes.

[42:01] You're a familiar with the last system.

[42:03] Okay.

[42:04] Okay.

[42:04] Thank you very much.

[42:07] Is there anyone here that would like to speak

[42:09] and support our opposition of this case?

[42:13] Seeing none where I close the public hearing, are there any questions from the commission?

[42:20] Seeing none, this is in my district, so I'd like to make a motion on KC-221-29-15C

[42:30] Sheila Fleming.

[42:31] The NAD has submitted but approved with the provisions to the Prophecy and Conceptual

[42:35] Plan with the Revised Date as Mr. Garmin stated.

[42:39] Motion made.

[42:41] Second, Bob, Mr. Windborne,

[42:46] are there any questions from the commission?

[42:48] Seeing none, we're called for the vote. All in favour, say aye.

[42:52] Aye. All opposed? Motion carries.

[42:56] Mr. Garmin, next case.

[42:58] The next item is C-31-15C.

[43:01] Request from Ida M and Edward E. Price.

[43:04] It's a request to reason from A-1 agricultural district to A-R-6C.

[43:09] Agricultural residential with conditions on G-PIN 782-977-6754 consists of approximately 5.97 acres,

[43:21] and located on the east line of Goshen Road approximately 575 feet north of the sea,

[43:26] intersection with Geese Lake Lane. Subject property is designated on the general

[43:31] land use plan as agricultural. Proposed zoning amendment would permit the creation of one additional

[43:37] building lot for density of one dwelling unit per 2.9 acres. Staff does recommend approvals

[43:44] subject to the submitted Prophors. We happy to address any questions you may have on this

[43:49] case. Thank you, Mr. Garmin. Any questions from the commission?

[43:55] Seeing none will open the public

[43:56] hearing. There's the applicant present. Would you please come forward?

[44:12] Because of new technology,

[44:13] We have to ask you to come forward now. I'm sorry.

[44:21] If you please just state your name in your district.

[44:28] I'd appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Price. I'm yall in favor of the staff report.

[44:36] Thank you very much.

[44:37] Thank you.

[44:40] Is there anyone here that would like to speak against or in support of this case?

[44:46] Seeing none will close the public hearing for any questions from the commission.

[44:52] Seeing none, but simultaneously, this is your district.

[44:57] Recommendation of approval.

[45:00] C-301, 15, C-I-2M, and E-Bud E-Price. Approved subject to this committed process dated November 19, 2015.

[45:12] Thank you, Ms. Overson. We have a motion by Ms. Overson. Do we have a second?

[45:16] Second by Mr. Pageant. Any questions from the Commission?

[45:21] Seeing none, we'll call for the vote. All in favour, say aye.

[45:24] All opposed?

[45:27] Motion carries.

[45:30] Robin?

[45:31] Yes, sirs.

[45:32] C-30-07-C.

[45:34] Amendment 115.

[45:35] Request from San Dr. C.

[45:37] An Emmett R. Stanley.

[45:39] To amend the Prophors approved with

[45:40] Resonion Request C-30-07.

[45:44] On G-PN-87-37-06-815-9,

[45:49] consists of approximately two acres,

[45:50] zone to AR-6 agricultural residential district with conditions and

[45:55] located on the south line of Williamsville Acres Lane, approximately 300 feet east of

[46:01] its intersection with Williamsville Road. Subject property is designated as

[46:05] agricultural and a general land use plan map. Proposed on your amendment would

[46:10] eliminate the proper requiring that a family member built on this property. Staff

[46:15] That does recommend approval subject to the revised Prophors submitted.

[46:20] Be happy to address any questions you may have on this case.

[46:23] Thank you, Mr. Garmin.

[46:24] Are there any questions from the Commission?

[46:28] Seeing that we'll open the floor for the public hearing is the applicant present, which

[46:33] please come forward and state your name.

[46:37] Andrew Stanley, Henry Dister.

[46:39] Thank you, Mr. Stanley.

[46:40] Are you in support of the staff's recommendation?

[46:44] Thank you very much.

[46:46] Is there anyone here that would like to speak in opposition or support of this case?

[46:53] Seeing none, we will close the public care in any comments from the commission.

[46:59] Seeing none, we will turn this out with Mr. Bailey this year district.

[47:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[47:05] I would like to recommend to the commission approval of case C-3007C, amendment 115,

[47:13] and Sandra Sea and Emrodlar Stanley.

[47:15] Subject to the Propeiras-Dated,

[47:17] November 16th, 2015.

[47:22] Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

[47:22] We will motion by Mr. Bailey, do we have a second,

[47:25] second by Mr. Arvison?

[47:28] Any questions from the Commission?

[47:31] I'm seeing none more call for the all-in-Vavers PI?

[47:34] All opposed.

[47:37] Mr. Garman next case.

[47:40] C-401-C amendment 115.

[47:43] Request from Lewis Town Commerce Center, LLC.

[47:47] It's for an amendment to the Prophors and Conceptual Plan

[47:49] to prove with rezoning request C401C.

[47:53] It's located on G-PIN 7788, 626131.

[47:59] Consists approximately 6.07 acres.

[48:04] It's currently zoned M2, Light, Industrial District

[48:07] with Conditions, and is located on the East Line

[48:09] of Lake Ridge Parkway.

[48:11] Approximately, 0.8th of a mile south of its intersection with Lewis Town Road.

[48:17] Subject property is designated on the General Lane use plan map as destination commerce.

[48:22] Ptozoni Amendment is to reason the property from M2, with conditions to B3 general business district, with conditions, to allow commercial use to similar to other B3 parcels in the winding broke development.

[48:36] Staff does recommend and I'll submit it, but approval subject to the proper submitted and revisions to the conceptual plan is recommended in the staff report.

[48:47] Be happy to address any questions you may have on this case.

[48:51] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any questions from the commission at this time?

[48:58] Seeing no will open the public hearing. Is the applicant present?

[49:02] Please come forward and state your name.

[49:05] The

[49:09] names with holiday properties and those telecomers center.

[49:13] Thank you, Ms. Taines.

[49:14] Are you in favor of the stage recommendation?

[49:18] Thank you very much.

[49:19] Thank you.

[49:22] Is there anyone here that would like to speak in opposition or support of this case?

[49:29] Seeing none, we will close the public hearing.

[49:32] Through the commission, we have any comments.

[49:37] Seeing none, this is in my district.

[49:39] And I would like to make a motion on KC-4-01, AM-1-15, Lewis Town, Commercial, Commerce Center,

[49:51] LLC.

[49:53] Now, let's submit it, but approve subject to the Prophet, submit it in November to 18th, 2015, and the recommend.

[50:00] The change to the conceptual plan dated November 2015, and revised November 18, 2015, as discussed in the summary of a stand-in issue.

[50:11] We have a motion. Do we have a second?

[50:15] Second, Mr. Whitaker.

[50:16] Are there any questions from the commission?

[50:19] The amount we're all for the vote. All in favor say aye.

[50:23] Aye. All opposed? Motion passes.

[50:30] Next case.

[50:30] The final item on your expedited agenda.

[50:34] Cup 713 amendment 115,

[50:38] Quest by Universal Environmental Services LLC,

[50:42] to amend the conditional use permit in accordance with section 26-183.9

[50:48] of the Hanover County Zoning Ordnance.

[50:51] To permit, petroleum storage on G-pins 7788,

[50:55] 7, 3, 8, 0, 4, 8 part, consists of approximately 0.44 of acres, zoned M3 having an industrial district.

[51:06] It's located on the south line of Air Park Road, approximately 350 feet east of its intersection with progress road.

[51:14] Subject property is designated as industrial and general land use plan.

[51:18] Staff does recommend approval subject to the recommended conditions.

[51:22] be happy to address any questions you may have on this case.

[51:26] Thank you, Mr. Garmin. Are there any questions from the Commission?

[51:31] Seeing none will open the floor for the public hearing. Is the applicant present?

[51:39] Seeing the applicants not here will seem there in agreement with the staff's recommendation

[51:43] is there. Anyone here that would like to speak in opposition or support of this case?

[51:50] Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Do the commissioners have any comments or

[51:55] questions?

[51:56] I'd like to ask one question Mr. Chairman.

[52:00] Do you know how much petroleum will be stored here?

[52:07] I believe it holds a total of 55,000 gallons.

[52:12] That's for all the tanks.

[52:14] All the tanks.

[52:16] And they will be in ground, right?

[52:18] No, they're above ground.

[52:21] Okay, thanks for the answer to the question.

[52:23] Thank you, Mr. Morgan.

[52:24] Any other questions from the permission?

[52:30] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For Cup 7-13, amendments 1-15, Universal Environmental Services

[52:39] LLC. I'd like to recommend approval subject to the conditions as outlined in the

[52:44] staff report.

[52:47] We have a motion by Mr. Windborne, do we have a second? Second by Mr. Bailey. Are there

[52:53] any questions from the commission.

[52:56] Seeing none will call for the vote, all in favour say aye.

[53:00] All opposed?

[53:02] Motion passes.

[53:10] There are ex-case.

[53:12] To request C-2215C, it's request from Bernard E.

[53:16] Clary, Junior, and others.

[53:18] Located in the Henry Magisteria District, it's request

[53:21] to reason to R.S. single-family residential district

[53:25] with conditions.

[53:26] Located on the North line of Paul Green Road,

[53:29] Approximately 75 feet west of its intersection with the rural point roads currently zoned a one-agricultural

[53:35] And since of approximately 39.57 acres

[53:39] Planned youth plan designates this is suburban general, which allows up to one-to-four dwelling units per acre

[53:49] The subject area is that which is in the red hatched on the map

[53:56] The applicant is proposing 103 single-family homes for a gross density of 2.6 units per acre.

[54:04] Proposed lots are consistent with other developments in the vicinity.

[54:10] 7.92 acres of open space is being provided.

[54:15] Staff does recommend some additional detail for the amenities that are being proposed for this open space.

[54:21] And it also concludes 1.59 acres of active open area.

[54:28] Plan does show street trees, lighting, and pedestrian paths that are in accordance with the district requirements.

[54:37] There's currently a private access easement through the subject property to an adjoining process.

[54:44] If it access drives are not allowed in the RS District, but the conceptual plan doesn't

[54:50] note that this easement will be vacated prior to recordation of that section of the subdivision,

[54:56] and a joining lot will be provided public road access.

[55:01] There are two entrances proposed to this development from Paul Green Road that do meet V dot specifications.

[55:08] The entrance headlines with midday lane in the legacy park, development across Paul Green Road will include an eastbound left turn lane into the site,

[55:18] with a maximum allow, with the maximum allowable storage and taper. The southbound, there will also be a southbound left exiting lane from the site.

[55:29] Traffic impact analysis was conducted and indicates that there are no needed improvements

[55:35] at the intersection of pole green and lead Davis Road as a result of this development.

[55:41] And that's because the development would not generate the traffic that would drop the service level

[55:46] at the center section below D during peak hours.

[55:52] The applicant has agreed to install, signage that instructs traffic not to block the intersection

[55:58] and created at the whole green road midway lane

[56:02] and with the primary entrance in this development.

[56:05] B.I. have no comments regarding the traffic impact analysis

[56:10] for the proposed improvements for this development.

[56:18] Who, oriented,

[56:27] person is not coming up out of here,

[56:32] but, Paul Green Road is just to this,

[56:43] here we go.

[56:45] Thank you, David, I got it this time.

[56:47] Paul Green Road right along through here.

[56:51] This would be the primary entrance into the project,

[56:55] midday lane and legacy park over here.

[56:58] Here's a secondary entrance.

[57:00] As you can see, the development lots.

[57:03] There's open space with a wet pond right here

[57:07] at the entrance, another open space.

[57:10] A few little pocket open space

[57:12] located throughout the development.

[57:14] And also a natural buffer area, a buffer area that will be left in its natural state, supplemented with additional vegetation, and that adjoins the historic white chimneys formed to the north and to a historic cemetery that's located to the east.

[57:36] Allivations have been provided that show materials for the homes to include stone, brick, shake, and sighting.

[57:45] Grage's are located both on the front of the buildings and on the sides.

[57:52] For you are a few of the elevations that's been provided.

[57:55] That would be typical of this development showing the materials proposed.

[58:01] There was a community meeting held October 8, 2015.

[58:05] Some of the issues raised at this meeting include the traffic at the intersection of Paul Green and Lee Davis Road.

[58:12] And also a buffer that should be provided between the property and the adjoining form to the north.

[58:19] The historical commission determined that preserving the existing trees

[58:23] and the proposed buffers would help protect the viewshed of nearby white chimneys in historic Paul Green Church.

[58:31] The Prophors with this case include contributions to road improvements, minimum house size,

[58:40] foundations, dedication of right away, transportation improvements that were identified

[58:45] in the traffic impact analysis.

[58:48] Staff does recommend a revision to the transportation improvements proper that would include

[58:53] the do not block intersection signage that the applicant has agreed to install.

[58:59] Scott does recommend the denial as submitted, but approval subject to the changes to the

[59:05] proper submitted, the sexual plan as outlined in the staff report.

[59:10] Staff would also mention that this conceptual plan does meet the requirements for a preliminary

[59:14] plat approval.

[59:17] Staff will be happy to address any questions you may have on this case.

[59:23] Thank you, Mr. Garmin.

[59:25] Are there any questions from the commission?

[59:31] See and none is the applicant for us, please come forward and state your name.

[59:52] Good evening Mr. Chairman ladies and gentlemen, my name is Jim Thia ball and I'm here this evening.

[59:56] On behalf of Paul Green Development Company, LLC.

[1:00:00] This is a request to reason of approximately forty-eight years from A1 to RS with substantial

[1:00:05] proper conditions. This property has been known for some time by sort of an extended group

[1:00:12] or the majority of the properties, somewhat longer than 50 years. And the request is to develop

[1:00:19] an upscale community of 102 homes or is one existing home that will remain on the property,

[1:00:24] resulting in 103 total.

[1:00:28] This is well within the density guidelines of your land use plan.

[1:00:33] So both the use and the density of the proposal is consistent with that plan.

[1:00:39] Next slide please.

[1:00:42] The site is on the north side of Paul Green Road,

[1:00:44] generally between real-point road and Lee Davis Road.

[1:00:47] This is the next slide is a little bit of a

[1:00:50] of a close-up also showing the entrance section.

[1:00:54] Next one please.

[1:00:54] And just note on the concept plan that this depicts a community primarily of cold-to-sac type

[1:01:00] streets, but providing potential of future connection to property to the north, should

[1:01:05] that develop, as well as two points of ingress and egress from pole green road in order

[1:01:11] to better disperse cars.

[1:01:15] The plan shows buffers against adjacent properties and a 50-foot landscape buffer along

[1:01:20] pole green along with street lights and a trail.

[1:01:24] We've also shown approximately seven and a half acres of open space throughout.

[1:01:29] You'll note, green space around the BMP facility, the neopold green road, and some centralized

[1:01:36] green areas that will include things like benches and possibly gazibos and things like

[1:01:43] that for passive recreational gathering type areas.

[1:01:49] next please. This shows the entrance section of a long pole green or coming off of a pole

[1:01:57] green with plantings at the entrances next please. It's a project identification signage

[1:02:05] very upscale community to sort of announce you've arrived home, create a sense of place next.

[1:02:11] And then this is our cross-section showing the grass strip, the sidewalk, and the planting strip of

[1:02:18] long pole green road.

[1:02:19] This is a 50-foot planted buffer along pole green next place.

[1:02:26] And the elevations of the homes, Lee has shown you those, they're generally craftsmen style,

[1:02:32] a little bit of tweak on that style next place, but they're high-quality materials, high design,

[1:02:38] lots of different roof treatments for an architectural interest.

[1:02:43] Prophors include minimum house sizes of 1,800 square feet for 1 story, homes,

[1:02:48] 2,200 square feet for 2 stories.

[1:02:51] Transportation improvements have been provided.

[1:02:53] The entrances we have agreed to provide that signage to keep traffic from blocking the

[1:03:00] full crossover there opposite midday.

[1:03:04] BDAH has tentatively said that that is fine.

[1:03:07] I want to see the final detail, but we have touched that base with them and staff.

[1:03:12] Most importantly, in this case, we all know that there's a traffic on whole green,

[1:03:16] but we have proper $6,356 per home.

[1:03:20] That's a total of $673,311.

[1:03:25] Over the development of the property is a contribution towards area roads.

[1:03:30] We have submitted a traffic state that indicates minimal impacts on area traffic with levels of service,

[1:03:37] mostly remaining the same or clearly within an acceptable range.

[1:03:41] And some of this request is consistent with your land use plan.

[1:03:46] Has the support of your professional planning staff?

[1:03:49] We'll have a minimum impact on your roads and your schools.

[1:03:53] We're also pleased to announce that award-winning mainstream homes.

[1:03:56] It will be the builder of these homes.

[1:03:58] You may be familiar about the Richmond metropolitan community, very fortunate to have that.

[1:04:09] I would respectfully request it to recommend approval of this case to the Board of Supervisors.

[1:04:13] I would be happy to answer any questions.

[1:04:16] Thank you, Mr. Vibbo.

[1:04:17] Are there any questions for the applicant?

[1:04:22] I don't believe we have any at this time.

[1:04:24] Thank you.

[1:04:28] Is there anyone here that would like to speak in support of this case?

[1:04:34] Seeing none is there in anyone that he will let just speak in opposition of this case.

[1:04:40] To please conform.

[1:04:47] Please state your name and you.

[1:04:48] I'm in the Henry District, Joe St. John.

[1:04:51] I live in Hill, Meadows, my property backs up to it.

[1:04:53] I want you to pop that map back up there.

[1:04:58] He's stated that.

[1:05:01] The fees properties will be similar to the properties surrounding it, and once it gets the hills, meadows, yeah, that's a good one, think that'll work, you do that there.

[1:05:13] But you can see we are on, right, one acre lots, and here they're putting close to three houses per acre that are 2.6, is that what it says?

[1:05:27] 2.6 per acre.

[1:05:30] And the reason that we are in opposition to it is, I mean we definitely know how the traffic is.

[1:05:36] And this will impact the traffic, but also I'm afraid that they put a cheaper type house like this.

[1:05:45] I mean we live in brick homes in this subdivision and their average around 500,000 dollars a home.

[1:05:53] And when they put these houses in behind us, we're afraid that it will take all the value away that we've put into our own properties.

[1:06:07] So this is why an opposition to this many houses going into there.

[1:06:11] Now if you put a better house with a higher price and a little more acreage, I think it would be a doable thing.

[1:06:20] But it is not in keeping with that subdivision that is backed right up to it.

[1:06:28] Thank you very much.

[1:06:32] Is there anyone else here that would like to speak in opposition? Please come forward.

[1:06:41] Please state your name.

[1:06:42] Steve, how come in Henry District?

[1:06:45] And I'm glad Mr. St. John spoke because it takes a lot.

[1:06:48] It's almost identical to what I was going to say.

[1:06:52] But my wife would probably yell at me if I didn't get up here at least to say something.

[1:06:56] She couldn't be here tonight.

[1:06:57] But my house butts up to the property on the north-west side

[1:07:02] I've got 10 acres on a big home.

[1:07:05] And our concerns are simply, you know, we're not

[1:07:10] against the whole development or anything like that,

[1:07:12] which is concerned.

[1:07:14] It doesn't make sense to me that this would not affect

[1:07:19] the traffic on the O Green Road, because all that

[1:07:22] live around there have, you know, we all

[1:07:24] I'll complain to each other all the time about the traffic.

[1:07:27] It's extreme amount of traffic and the whole green road.

[1:07:30] And especially right at that intersection.

[1:07:32] So we're just, I'm just wondering where we're getting our figures,

[1:07:36] and who's saying everything is within the guidelines,

[1:07:38] because it just doesn't seem to add up.

[1:07:41] The only other concern I have is the same thing,

[1:07:43] is that it seems to be an awful high-density development,

[1:07:49] where all the surrounding properties are all on one to four acres

[1:07:53] with bigger homes, so it's kind of a negative impact on all those properties, as well as

[1:08:00] seeming to be fairly an awful lot of traffic to that road, so pretty much in line with

[1:08:07] what Mr. St. John had to say, and not in opposition to the development, just in opposition

[1:08:14] to the density and the size of home and the traffic problems.

[1:08:18] Thank you, Mr.

[1:08:21] Chairman.

[1:08:22] Is there anyone else that would like to speak in the opposition?

[1:08:32] Please, stage a name in your location.

[1:08:35] Jeff Alexander, I'm upset in Henry District.

[1:08:38] Chairman and members of the kind of accounting planning commission.

[1:08:41] Thank you for the opportunity to speak for a goard to the resounding of the clear property

[1:08:44] public hearing.

[1:08:45] C-22-15C.

[1:08:48] I'm Jeff Alexander and I represent the Alexander Realty LLC,

[1:08:52] which in its property adjacent to the personal question in addition to

[1:08:56] of other properties along Pol Green Road.

[1:08:58] One of our main concerns of this potential

[1:09:00] rezoning is a traffic impact on already heavily

[1:09:03] traffic, Pol Green Road.

[1:09:05] During a typical evening rush hour,

[1:09:07] eastbound traffic backs up from the intersection

[1:09:09] with Lee Davis Road to an area between Bill Creek Road

[1:09:12] and Interstate 295, a distance up to two miles.

[1:09:16] Morning traffic congestion is similar

[1:09:17] in the Westbound direction.

[1:09:19] The effect of this rezoning will ultimately add

[1:09:21] in a district of 1,000 vehicle trips per day,

[1:09:24] which will certainly add to the traffic congestion

[1:09:25] long cold green road.

[1:09:27] No mention the report is made to alleviate the extra traffic burden on existing homeowners.

[1:09:32] In addition, we feel that the 20-foot buffer between historic white chimneys and the

[1:09:37] rezoning parcel is insufficient.

[1:09:39] We asked the commission to reject this rezoning request until the traffic issues and the

[1:09:43] buffer issues along traffic issues along cold green road and the buffer issues have been

[1:09:47] addressed.

[1:09:48] Thank you.

[1:09:49] Thank you.

[1:09:50] Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition?

[1:10:00] In none, Mr. Embo, would you like to re-bottle?

[1:10:05] Yes, briefly, please, Mr. Chairman, your staff reports, sets forth on the second page, the relative

[1:10:11] lot sizes of homes around the subject property, and while there are some larger homes up to the north

[1:10:18] and to the west, there is also some smaller lots and legacy park narrative place, and sharing

[1:10:22] to them is set forth in your staff report. And please keep in mind that your land use plan,

[1:10:30] which is a guide suggested that this development

[1:10:33] would be appropriate at one to four units per acre,

[1:10:36] and we're generally right in the middle of that at 2.6.

[1:10:42] The buffer along the northwest,

[1:10:43] we've profit a 20-foot buffer against white chimneys.

[1:10:47] That area is all wooded.

[1:10:49] We can leave those trees.

[1:10:51] That area I understand is predominantly farmed

[1:10:53] and the concern was that they didn't want people complaining

[1:10:59] about farming activities which I understand at the same time I think you have it right to develop

[1:11:04] your property and sure as I'm standing here one day they'll be before you and maybe I'll

[1:11:09] get a chance to represent them but in any event we have provided that buffer and it is a heavily

[1:11:16] treat buffer traffic you all know a poll drain is like in some respects you know what this

[1:11:24] case suffers from is the last guy in, right, because your traffic issues are all background traffic.

[1:11:31] I mean, this request sounds about 30 to 40 cars during the peak hour towards Lee Davis.

[1:11:38] A thousand trips a day reference is over a 24 hour period in my trip, of course, as you know,

[1:11:43] one car going out is one, that same car going in is two, and so they get double counted.

[1:11:49] But traffic studies should, during the peak-hour trips, small number of cars added to a large

[1:11:59] amount of background traffic.

[1:12:01] No road improvements were suggested, Paul Green Road, we've talked to Mike Flag, and it's

[1:12:08] in the queue.

[1:12:09] At some point you've applied for funds to begin design of future improvements, but we've provided

[1:12:17] to turn lanes at that main entrance, and we've added the second entrance to try to disperse traffic within.

[1:12:25] So I think the folks that have owned this property for quite a long time have every right to develop as all the other development that has occurred around them, particularly when it's consistent with your plan, and it's in the urban service area.

[1:12:39] And I think that they have, you know, they're right to expect that the land use plan in the urban service area would allow them to develop their property

[1:12:50] at a density well within the range of your land use plans. So while there are impacts, those impacts are minimal.

[1:12:56] They could have been, I think, more and still have been supported by your land use plan.

[1:13:04] So Lee Davis and Cold Reen is a problem every day for a while in the AM and the PMP.

[1:13:12] But I think what our traffic study is saying is this development is not significantly contribute

[1:13:19] to that in any measure.

[1:13:23] I'm happy to answer any other questions that you might have.

[1:13:27] Thank you, Mr. Deville.

[1:13:31] This time we are closed the public hearing.

[1:13:34] Mr. Garmin, would you like to add any comments?

[1:13:38] Mr. Chair, I've got a couple of comments.

[1:13:41] And I'd like to reiterate something that Mr. Thibald mentioned.

[1:13:47] And to assure the residents the staff, as well as the Plan Commission Board,

[1:13:52] our sensitive to the traffic issues long-poken red.

[1:13:56] And, as stated by Mr. Thierball, the county is in the process of seeking the first stage

[1:14:04] of funding to begin the design work for improvements to pulvering the road, it is the next

[1:14:11] road in the county's road priority list.

[1:14:15] And I would note that with the road cash proffers, this project is expected to generate nearly

[1:14:25] $675,000 worth of revenues, and those funds collected from this project through the transportation

[1:14:35] impact offer will be applied directly towards the improvement of poll-gring red. Under the

[1:14:41] county under the state's funding system, the county can apply for what's referred to as

[1:14:52] 175,000, we have the, and it's actually 670, 3, 3, 11 to be exact, but we have,

[1:15:00] The opportunity to seek additional matching fund dollar for dollar. So this project may actually generate

[1:15:08] a total of roughly 1.4 million dollars for road improvements in addition to any other funding

[1:15:16] that may become available. So once again, we are sensitive to the traffic issues, but the

[1:15:25] County does have a plan and process in place that is currently underway to begin seeking

[1:15:33] the necessary funding for improvements to Paul Greenrad.

[1:15:39] Thank you, Mr. Muloney.

[1:15:41] Are there any questions from the commission?

[1:15:49] I'm saying none.

[1:15:50] Mr. Bayley.

[1:15:50] I believe this is in your district.

[1:15:52] Okay.

[1:15:53] I would like to make a couple of comments before a motion is Mr. Thibwell.

[1:16:03] mentioned, the property does lie within the suburban service area, which is where 80% of

[1:16:10] the development of the county is going to go. That's according to the complain. The density

[1:16:15] in that would allow four units per acre. And this proposed development is 2.6, which is only

[1:16:23] about 65% of what they could put there, not saying it would necessarily be approved if the

[1:16:29] asking for for, but the only asking for about 65% of what could go there.

[1:16:37] I've had one email from someone in my district that was Mr. McKitrick, MCK, TTRCK, who lives

[1:16:47] in Legacy Park. And his concern was coming out of Legacy Park and being able to make a

[1:17:01] is which will start around 300,000 would probably improve the value of the homes in legacy

[1:17:08] park.

[1:17:09] And it may not homes further north, I guess, that if they're half a million dollar homes.

[1:17:15] But to address his concern, I did ask Ms. Chile to check with Vida on about putting these

[1:17:22] do not block intersection signs there.

[1:17:26] And we've gotten approval for that to help eliminate the problem if anyone is coming

[1:17:32] into a legacy park and wants to make a left-hand turn on two-poil green road.

[1:17:39] Just to reiterate what Mr. Maloney said that it does generate over $650,000 of money through

[1:17:46] the traffic impact, I had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Flag as well and the county has already

[1:17:55] need application for a grant to do a study, and hopefully we'll know by March if we're going

[1:18:04] to get in and how much in order to start doing some design work on Paul Green Road. Everyone

[1:18:10] understands the traffic there. I haven't delivered all church. I travel Paul Green Road almost

[1:18:17] on a daily basis, so I do not have to be told what the traffic is like. Occasion I'll go all the

[1:18:23] up to 360. I'm fortunate that my schedule permits me to go and come and avoid peak hours

[1:18:31] if I want to. But for the last two months, I have purposely driven Paul Green Road during

[1:18:37] peak hours to see what the traffic was like at peak hours. Normally, I can make it from 360

[1:18:44] to 295 and 12 minutes. Tuesday this week, I went through that 815 to took me 15 minutes.

[1:18:51] The absolute worst I've had for two months was coming home and after noon when one gentleman

[1:18:58] mentioned how the traffic will back up past Bill Creek I was up there near the BP station

[1:19:04] and it took me 18 minutes. That was one day. So the traffic is heavy but hopefully it is being

[1:19:09] addressed. It is number two on the list in the county to try to be wide and sliding hill is number

[1:19:16] one, no one knows exactly when the funding will come, but it is number two in the county.

[1:19:27] So if I look at the case and it's entirety, I cannot find a compelling reason that there

[1:19:36] would should deny the applicant his request for an all of the good, positive things I think

[1:19:41] will come out of the development.

[1:19:43] So having said that Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend to the Commission approval,

[1:19:47] of KC-2215C, Bernard E. Clarid Jr. at all, subject to the

[1:19:57] Prophors in the State, I'm sorry, denial is a myth.

[1:20:00] But approval, subject to the revised profits, which would include the signage, as mentioned on-polled

[1:20:08] green road, and the conceptual plan, which was last revised November the 19th, 2015.

[1:20:16] Thank you, Mr Bailey. We have a motion by Mr Bailey. Do we have a second?

[1:20:25] Second by Mr worker.

[1:20:30] Do we

[1:20:30] questions from the Commission for comments.

[1:20:33] I'd like to make a one comment, Mr. Chairman.

[1:20:37] I was fortunate enough to set in on the couple meetings that

[1:20:41] with Mr. Bailey and the developer that traffic engineers

[1:20:48] engulf everything.

[1:20:49] Very thoroughly on this because my concern was traffic

[1:20:54] to Mr. Bailey and I've talked about it probably two

[1:20:58] times a month for the last several months. I went pole green road almost every day for a while.

[1:21:05] Mr. Bailey was doing it. We did the same thing on another subdivision up the road a couple

[1:21:10] years ago and watched the traffic. But the thing that I look at is when we read did the

[1:21:19] comprehensive plan four years, three years ago what it might be. We had 23 meetings throughout this

[1:21:25] And we took everybody's suggestions of where they wanted to grow,

[1:21:30] it's where they didn't want it.

[1:21:31] How much they wanted and everything.

[1:21:34] And this is where people wanted it.

[1:21:38] And they didn't, you know, it was really good.

[1:21:41] So with that, that's the reason I'm supporting this,

[1:21:44] and sort of supporting Mr. Bailey in this.

[1:21:49] Thank you, Mr. Whitaker.

[1:21:50] Any other comments from the Commission?

[1:21:55] I would just like to make the comment.

[1:21:56] that we've had several cases on poll-green and bell-curric area and that traffic is always one

[1:22:03] of the major obstacles and we've had a couple cases where some of us have not approved

[1:22:09] those cases because of traffic situations I think this one falls in a parameter that we

[1:22:14] can deal with, especially with some road improvements coming in the profit amounts that the

[1:22:28] I would like to just offer a comment of thanks to the staff, thanks to Mr. Bailey and Mr.

[1:22:36] Whitaker for their third job in researching this and bringing it forward to us.

[1:22:41] I appreciate that. It's not my district. Not on my side of 95, but I appreciate the

[1:22:48] that everyone's done, so I'm feel fully informed on what I'm voting for.

[1:22:52] Thank you, Ms. Wimbledon. Are there any other questions from the Commission?

[1:22:58] And we have a motion and a second, so we will call for the vote. All in favour say aye.

[1:23:04] Aye. All opposed? Motion carries.

[1:23:09] Mr. Chairman, there are also the applicant's seeking preliminary

[1:23:16] The applicant is also seeking preliminary

[1:23:19] Plata Proval.

[1:23:20] Staff would recommend a motion that if approved by the Board of Supervisors that the conceptual plan

[1:23:25] serve as the preliminary plan.

[1:23:29] And that is included in the motion.

[1:23:31] We're seeking that as a separate motion on that.

[1:23:34] Mr. David, would you like to make a motion on that?

[1:23:37] Senate, again, David, that if approved by the Board of Supervisors, the conceptual plan shall serve as the preliminary subdivision plan.

[1:23:51] I'll make that motion that if approved by the Board of Supervisors, the conceptual plan, serve as the...

[1:23:58] preliminary winter is a plan for motion by Mr. Bailey who we have a second and I'll second that motion

[1:24:05] I'll second by Mr. Woodker any questions from your commission?

[1:24:10] Seeing none we'll call for the vote all in favour say aye.

[1:24:14] All closed motion carries.

[1:24:19] Mr. Garmin I believe that was the last case, wasn't it?

[1:24:24] I mean yes.

[1:24:24] Okay, so that brings us to our close to the meeting of any other issues from the commission or Mr. Maloney.

[1:24:34] I would just like to wish the commission and the residents who are here this evening, a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

[1:24:42] And we'll see you all next year.

[1:24:43] The same goes for the commission.

[1:24:45] Thank you very much.

Planning Commission Meeting - Dec 10th, 2015

Agenda

Transcript