[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:04] Good evening. I'd like to welcome everyone here tonight to the Deism of Field Special Meeting of the Hennelgenic Planning Commission, and the purpose of that meeting tonight is to review changes to the comprehensive plan.
[0:17] First of all, I would like to ask Ms. Baderson, she would call the roll, please.
[0:23] Here. Mr. Live Better.
[0:26] Mrs. Averson here. Mr. Hadra.
[0:29] Here. Mr. Abbott.
[0:30] Here. Mr. McGee.
[0:31] Here.
[0:32] Here.
[1:02] I think I heard someone over this corner that might be able to catch a certain meeting sometime and lead us himself.
[1:15] At each of our meetings, we do allow 20 minutes, we've got citizens time, and that's time that we allow citizens to address the plan and commission on any.
[1:26] I don't, that is not one tonight's agenda that you would like to discuss with us or bring
[1:33] to our attention.
[1:34] So I'm going to open Susan's time at this right now and ask if there's anyone here who
[1:39] would like to address the commission and discuss anything that is not one tonight's agenda.
[1:44] It's a regime.
[1:49] So you know, no, no.
[1:50] I'll close Susan's time.
[1:51] We'll move right along to our political hearings that are advertised for someone clock,
[1:56] which is the Comprehensive Plan of Amendment CPA-1-17 at this time I'll turn it over to Mr.
[2:03] Garmin for his presentation.
[2:05] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission.
[2:08] As you're aware, May of 2017, the Board of Supervisors,
[2:12] authorized the Commission to begin the 2017-2037 update to the Comprehensive Plan.
[2:19] Subsequent to that, the staff held a series of community meetings eight to be exact for in the summer to get public input on the planned before it was drafted and then the fall together public comment on the plan after it was drafted.
[2:37] Planning Commission further held five public work sessions to discuss the citizens'
[2:45] comments and to provide staff direction for preparing an updated plan.
[2:51] And I'll be going through tonight some of the most significant changes to that plan.
[2:57] In section one, the growth management plan was updated with new population forecast
[3:03] based on the U.S. Census and county estimates,
[3:07] that assumption would be that the county would grow
[3:09] at a growth rate of 1.5%.
[3:11] We also updated the land capacity analysis
[3:14] using the new population forecast.
[3:18] The growth management plan,
[3:23] one minor change in the high was area here,
[3:28] and that would be the area west of that hatched line
[3:31] to be added to the suburban service area.
[3:36] The land use plan, section two,
[3:41] density range for the suburban general designation,
[3:44] which changed from one to four dwelling units per acre
[3:46] to one and a half to three and a half dwelling units per acre.
[3:50] And in the suburban high designation,
[3:52] the change from four to eight dwelling units per acre
[3:54] to three and a half to eight units per acre.
[3:57] The suburban transitional one to two dwelling unit per acre
[4:01] designation was eliminated or replaced with the general, with the suburban general, designation
[4:07] at one and a half to three and a half. Also, the multi-use designation, the recommendation
[4:13] was revised so then no more than 50% of the development be residential and no more than 25%
[4:20] of non-residential B for retail uses. And this is the proposed general land-use plan map.
[4:28] Some of the detailed changes, this corresponds with the expansion to the suburban service area.
[4:34] We went through just a minute ago.
[4:36] This would be a change from agricultural to commercial.
[4:40] This is in the highless area in the vicinity of Ponzi track in Ashland Road.
[4:45] This is an expansion of an existing commercial note in the cold harbor area.
[4:52] If you're familiar with Allison's garage, it's a triangle that's in the middle of this intersection.
[4:58] and it's currently zone B3.
[5:00] The existing commercial note reflected at the three. There was a request from some citizens to the planning commissioner and the board member to expand that commercial note to the adjoining properties.
[5:17] I will say, with this request and all the other land use requests, this does not change
[5:23] a property's zoning, and we change as the land use designation, and as zoning requests
[5:29] from the property owner can come later with specifics of that use in the design of the
[5:34] use.
[5:35] But it would need to be compatible with
[5:40] another request from a citizen was to change the designation.
[5:46] this is approximately a six-acre parcel,
[5:51] like joining what used to be shownies and I can't
[5:55] remember the name of the church, maybe you know Mr. Whitaker, that's on the west side of this,
[6:01] maybe church of the Creator. Here to the Creator, thanks so.
[6:08] This would be a change from the
[6:10] existing in suburban general, one-to-word dwelling units per acre, two industrial. This is in the
[6:20] along Virginia Crane 5. In the transportation section, we did add a reference to corridor specifications for at least station road.
[6:32] We did add standards for level of service for intersections when evaluating new development.
[6:38] We did eliminate two future thoroughfare, major collector from woodside lanes, five, the future
[6:46] route 1250,
[6:51] five, and a minor arterial from mechanic field turnpike to Creighton Road.
[6:57] Lead-out has reviewed the proposed land use changes, and the proposed changes to thoroughfare
[7:03] plan, and has stated that no additional traffic modeling would be required with this update.
[7:08] They are sending us a letter to confirm that
[7:14] email that V dot will be sending us a letter.
[7:17] Also, in response to a concerns submitted by a citizen during the update about transportation funding not being in our comprehensive plan.
[7:27] Staff consulted with V dot and V dot gave us an idea that other jurisdictions have referenced their applicable MPOs.
[7:35] So staff is recommending text, additional text to the transportation plan, and you've
[7:41] been handed out a copy of Section 3 Transportation on the second page, and it's in red,
[7:47] is the new language.
[7:49] It pretty much generally references the Richmond Regional Transportation Organization, which
[7:55] hand over as a part of, and that organization's Transportation Improvement Program, which provides
[8:01] approved projects, cost estimates, and obligated funds for those proposed projects.
[8:10] On the major thoroughfare plan map, the two changes that I referenced, this is the thoroughfare
[8:16] between Woodside Lane, on the eastern side of Ashland over to 95, and eliminating the
[8:24] corridor from metal bridge down to Creighton Road, which is also known as a 1250.
[8:31] The new conference of plan, we also added a section four active in healthy living.
[8:39] This is a new component of the plan.
[8:41] It addresses the impacts of the built environment on the health of the community.
[8:46] We encourage a environment that promotes active living, import, incorporate physical activity
[8:52] into the daily lives of its residents, fosters interaction among residents to encourage social
[8:59] cohesion and it supports the natural resource management to maintain and improve air and
[9:04] wallet water quality.
[9:08] In Section 5, utilities and community facilities plan was primarily updated with the new
[9:13] population forecast as they relate to future community facilities.
[9:19] The utilities component was updated to reflect utilities conducted since 2012 and additional
[9:26] facilities. We updated the fire EMS component to better forecast growth and to add two future
[9:35] stations on the map in the vicinity of our 95 years ago. And at pole green and rural point
[9:42] road,
[9:47] the classification of various parks on the park were changed based on their acreage
[9:53] facilities, identified schools that can be utilized during certain hours for their facility.
[10:00] There was an addition of a new park in the vicinity of Cold Harbor, not far from that proposed expansion at Ellison's garage.
[10:08] And we removed some future park locations that were determined.
[10:14] It's a public utility plan, electing the changes as proposed by our Public Utility Department.
[10:23] Community facilities plan is hard to tell on here, but it does show the future fire stations here near 995 in Lowestam,
[10:30] right in the area of a rural point in school.
[10:35] Park facilities plan is proposed by our Department of Parks and Recreation.
[10:41] The schools and libraries plan had no changes to it.
[10:48] Also, other sections of the comprehensive plan were updated references
[10:52] or revised strategies for better clarification,
[10:56] concluded section six in environmental section seven historic resources here to
[11:00] tourism, in Section 8 economic development, in Mr. Abbott Section 8 did include a reference
[11:07] about the Hanover Airporting Economic Impact that has.
[11:13] The historic resources map that were no changes to this, it was just updated to show.
[11:18] I think just one additional property that was listed on the State National Register and
[11:24] no changes to our economic development zones.
[11:27] With that staff does recommend a adoption of the draft resolution that recommends a
[11:32] approval of CPA1117 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for Hanover County.
[11:39] As SWF 4th in the draft document, you've received titled Hanover County Virginia
[11:43] draft comprehensive plan, 2017-2037, dated November 16th, 2017, with the additional
[11:52] text referencing the Richmond Regional Transportation Planning and Organization. Staff will be happy to address any comments we've reviewed at this point.
[12:04] Thank you, sir.
[12:08] We're going to have citizens time. If it's okay with the commissioners, I think maybe we'll do that first and then have comments.
[12:19] questions input from the commissioners, is that okay with everyone? How many people are here
[12:25] tonight who would like to address the commission on the plan?
[12:32] All of you want to speak
[12:33] individually? Clear?
[12:37] Pardon me?
[12:44] Was it three or four over here? Would generally allow 20
[12:49] minutes, citizen's time. Each of you three will get five minutes and if you would maybe select
[12:59] two people, I'm sure everyone's got the same opinion. Maybe select two people, we'll let them
[13:04] go first. If that's okay, you can sort of discuss amongst yourselves who you want to speak,
[13:10] and I'll let two of them speak for five minutes each also. So I'll be able to tell you 25 minutes
[13:17] instead of 20. I assume we've got a total of five speakers. Is that okay? The form
[13:22] that's a little different because we really don't have an applicant where someone is
[13:27] going to speak in favor of a particular case and reserve time for a bottle. So everyone would
[13:34] just be allowed five minutes to make their comments on the comprehensive plan, which
[13:38] of a topic it is you want to discuss. So the three gentlemen over here, Mr. Nelson,
[13:44] And you want to go first,
[13:50] and if you would, as you come up, state your name in the district
[13:53] that you're in.
[13:56] Good evening, Chairman Verley, and members of the Planning Commission.
[14:00] My name is Bob Nelson, and I reside in the Czechahomany Magistral District.
[14:04] I have comments in five areas, and I will try to be brief.
[14:08] One, county needs to fund road and water sewer improvements.
[14:14] At your October 3rd, WorkSession, Messers flag, and Herzog discuss the challenges in funding hundreds of millions of dollars in hand over road and water sewer projects.
[14:27] Schools only add to that challenge.
[14:31] Two, careful and comprehensive studies are required under state law before hand over commits to a bicycle and pedestrian plan.
[14:41] For 35 years, Hanover has not planned for bike and pedestrian infrastructure.
[14:48] Funding, costs, benefits, feasibility, and community impacts have not been adequately studied.
[14:59] 3.
[15:01] Hanover citizens should have complete information on every element related to growth management.
[15:08] That includes the location of undeveloped lands, and approved developments, and housing units, as of June 30, 2017.
[15:20] Transparency must be a core planning commission, a comprehensive plan objective.
[15:27] 4. Population estimates should include new apartments and senior living units. The town
[15:36] of Ashland should not be ignored in the land consumption analysis. Again, careful and comprehensive
[15:43] studies are required by state law. In complete one should not be accepted. 5. All land
[15:53] which cannot be developed should be excluded in density calculations.
[15:58] Counting some wetland acreage 50% and other wetland and transmission line acreage 100% in computing
[16:06] density is a strange practice with bad incentives.
[16:11] Even developers have recognized it makes no sense.
[16:16] Chesapeake Bay Protection requires exclusion of retlins in computing density in a 21st-century
[16:23] compound.
[16:26] On election day, 2015, a planning commissioner told me citizens didn't participate in
[16:32] compound reviews.
[16:35] On that same date, ground was broken at the Charleston Ridge Apartments and staff was informed
[16:41] that Taylor Farm would be filed.
[16:43] One day, three messages to get involved, you'll receive detailed presentations and recommendations
[16:52] on major planning problems in Hanover County.
[16:56] I respectfully request today that you positively respond to them.
[17:01] Thank you.
[17:03] Thank you,
[17:05] sir.
[17:05] The next, you know sir, it's your name and district, and before you, Mr. Nelson is spoken
[17:15] before he's a little familiar with our time limits, it's five minutes, Mr. Hager keeps
[17:20] time, he'll let you know when you have 30 seconds left of the five minutes of us occur.
[17:26] Thank you very much. My name is Hank Kiper. I have two homes. My current residence
[17:31] is in the McCanksville district. The new house that I'm constructing is in the cold harbor
[17:36] district, and that's the one I'd like to discuss right now. This is my first time visiting
[17:41] the Planning Commission. I didn't even know it applied to my situation until I got a note
[17:45] from the Parks Direct Department just the other day asking me to participate in what amenities
[17:50] we want in the new park that it led to my property, which I haven't even moved into yet.
[17:55] I have a 22 year old autistic son, severely disabled.
[18:00] We're moving out of our neighborhood in Pebble Creek.
[18:03] We're moving out of it though to a rural setting.
[18:06] We spent three years identifying property.
[18:08] We reviewed the comprehensive plan last year before we closed on the property.
[18:13] So I was completely surprised by the plan for a park, especially since there's three
[18:19] battlefield parks less than a half mile away.
[18:21] So, my comments are to section four and section five, the active and healthy living, which I think is what's driving this park.
[18:31] The active and healthy living is a wonderful thing, but what costs in the rural parts of coal fiber district.
[18:38] It's a very rural part of the county, and it also is the crossroads of two major bells, which we all know.
[18:44] It's a huge tourism, and it's a cultural resource.
[18:49] In this particular park, it sits right at the corner
[18:51] of both major battlefields.
[18:54] And then Section 5 is where these proposed park is
[18:57] in the plan, which butts to my property
[19:00] that I'm going to hopefully finish in a month or so.
[19:04] And the hiking trails on the proposed drawings come
[19:08] within 30 feet of my new house that I'm building.
[19:12] And basically, it was had no idea it was there.
[19:14] So my question is, is there a burning need for this type of facility in the Cold Harbor District?
[19:20] Is there a giant problem that the county needs to fill?
[19:24] Second of all is, every drop of stormwater created on this property is going to come on to my property into my wetlands and into two large culverts that I maintain.
[19:34] So there's both a cultural resource issue and then there's also a very large stormwater issue.
[19:39] Your plan for this will have to include very large BMPs that deal with the storm water issue and all that
[19:45] Like I said 100% of that new storm water comes on to my new property
[19:49] So I really would give consideration wish you would give consideration about
[19:53] Both sections four and section five and if this this park solves a burning problem and if there's not a better place
[20:00] I would like to say that we can allocate funds for it. Thank you very much.
[20:04] Thank you, sir.
[20:07] Okay. The next speaker that was yesterday.
[20:24] Good afternoon, commission. Chairman Bailey. My name is Mr. May. I'm from the Home Building Association of Richmond.
[20:30] And I just have three quick points I'd like to bring up about this year's comprehensive plan update.
[20:35] First one is the H bar supports the current designation of the suburban service area.
[20:39] we think it's a really good idea, it's a really good way to organize growth while maintaining
[20:44] the rural character of Hanover, which I know is so important to so many of its citizens.
[20:50] The second point is that H bar supports higher density development within the suburban
[20:55] service area. By allowing a greater range of potential density, it grants the planning
[21:00] department, the planning commission yourselves, and ultimately the board of supervisors
[21:05] there's more flexibility in their decision-making process
[21:08] for individual development applications.
[21:10] As chapter two of the comprehensive plant states,
[21:13] the goal of the SSA is to have compact and continuous
[21:16] development that maximizes the efficient use
[21:19] of public facilities that provides a variety of housing
[21:22] options that meet the demand of developing workforce
[21:25] and satisfies population demand trends,
[21:28] which the comprehensive plant does an excellent job
[21:31] of pointing out.
[21:32] H bar believes that by limiting the suburban general land use zoning designation to 3.5 dwelling units per acre
[21:39] It will inevitably use up the finite resource of real estate faster than if it remained at its current destination of 4 dwelling units per acre
[21:50] And as you take a look at market trends, an older generation is moving out of houses and they're looking for smaller houses that are easier to maintain on smaller acres
[22:01] So more density, and if you're looking at the younger generation of millennials that are going
[22:07] into the market for the first time, your first time home buyers, they too are looking
[22:12] for smaller, more dense urban feeling developments.
[22:16] Now, that's not to say that your traditional developments don't still have a place.
[22:21] In fact, I think that that will still likely be a driving force, however, by keeping it at
[22:28] forward units per acre, it gives you all the flexibility to make the game time decisions that
[22:33] you need to per every application, or yeah, per every development application. Finally, AESPRO
[22:41] supports keeping the mixed use land use ratios at their current level, decreasing the amount of
[22:46] residential development and the total projects to 50% and raising commercial to 50% will likely
[22:51] make this designation unusable by the development community. And I know I've heard concern
[22:58] about the mixed use and I empathize and I understand those. I just don't know if that if this
[23:03] is the best mechanism to handle some of those concerns. So I'm happy to answer any questions
[23:09] if you ever need to reach out. I know Director Maloney and Mr. Garmin both have my contact and
[23:17] I'm happy to help. Thank you so much.
[23:20] It was
[23:26] all from the side of the group here, and we got to two speakers within a third place.
[23:38] Good evening Chairman Belly. My name is Gary Willen. I reside in the Chica Harmony District.
[23:43] I'm speaking to support section for the active and healthy living section.
[23:48] I was fortunate enough to be the chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee for
[23:53] and cyclability that was set up by the Board of Supervisors to inform this activity.
[24:01] So I was lucky enough to work with a number of other hand over residents, business representatives,
[24:07] building representatives who put in a lot of work and effort to fully research and develop a lot of what went into the section.
[24:17] We appreciate that Hanover is competing for funds, and there are a lot of competing issues
[24:24] across Hanover District, Hanover County for the funds.
[24:27] We understand that.
[24:29] We're not trying to say everywhere it needs a cycle path, everywhere it needs a walking
[24:33] path.
[24:34] We're very sensitive that everything needs to be in context.
[24:37] We're aware that over a thousand Hanover residents responded to our survey, largely the
[24:44] The vast majority fully supportive of a more active, connected, safe, Hanover County, where
[24:50] communities are joined up, and people can move between them, not necessarily in a car,
[24:56] and be safe doing that.
[24:58] There's currently...
[24:59] Bye-bye.
[25:31] Walu un robl y ddof pfddol i jirgu dd 쓰�bum gael tipo, rholr arll llwn, hyn,
[26:32] o man E onga'u
[26:32] mae ei'n wneud y cyfrdyn, mae动 y mwychod.
[26:36] Mae yn ydydd drwyfdydd gydaedd ywyddaedd ywyddaedd, mae eisiauedd, o'i fferfaenid ywyddaedd'n
[26:41] fferfaenid ydydd gefferd ywyddaedd iwell yn ywyddaedd.
[26:45] A ydyddsin fferd yn ywyddaedd ywyddaedd hwnn mwychodd yfyddaedd ywyddaedd.
[26:53] Ydydd ywyddaedd ywyddaedd hwnn yn fferd yn ywyddaedd hynt â'n fferd yn ywyddaedd
[26:57] ywyddaedd.
[26:57] lifa y siolilia, sydria, bywintigs oedau sic joybldys.
[27:01] Ldri rhoi yan geldeno chef, bywintig te i they sing,
[27:10] justhi chi'r plazwraud am'r fweu.
[27:13] E ca'i gweith y di o'r ôl hyn o gwgau, ydydd ddeu, i o'r d fild ydiol, mae'n ddeolau chi'n ddeolau, e'r ydyl'i
[27:32] Rydyl amendment yw dmitrydd atrad.
[27:34] Mae'n pw endorsed aweithuntheyw theych rydynt ysaר yw betjw i oinder yw
[27:42] hynflwre chael ydvi Forgetriaath ac rydym ddynd yw ysayrw
[27:44] mae lleu swn?
[27:48] Ydy endwrgu wedi
[28:05] hwn y
[28:05] Gud nomu yna'd sut.
[28:31] Mae ywlegiwfraig yn siun o di Diyrlu 지�ryw yma din ei sydd mesures
[28:34] yr caud mor szuperdaes i' am siun seud â ni никто chi cil ei yn,
[28:38] findinggae formodag o deotun Iwrefa gwneud.
[28:43] Gud y people o was anghti griad critid,
[28:48] mae'n 다�book o weif sicrhau zilffu o又 yn yen,
[28:52] o no eithel o nynnfraig ddlwod.
[28:55] yn miodol grau o gan ullyd rwfnyn gallu i y cyfan goo Sagewalen.
[28:59] Siwn o валd fi dddddddiglwyn o bydd defender o'n sydd brwl i draitha
[29:03] i dddddddyl chi yно hna'n hwreud yn 5dw y doedog gwyfenre.
[29:07] Tot o pow'w nel bydd i pffd drwingofoen gan argoddo,
[29:13] michael o nh talentedf Como at mae'n hy Wolver yn'n viaud y cyn...
[29:17] what's going to happen in hilys.
[29:20] I'm concerned because all of us in the county are going to be on the hook
[29:23] for whatever utilities, whatever other support services
[29:29] will be required for that denser development
[29:32] in that suburban service area.
[29:34] I went to the very first meeting at Elmont
[29:37] and the subgroup that I ended up in had two gentleman in it
[29:41] and they immediately pulled out plans
[29:43] for this expansion of a suburban service area
[29:46] Rahesdio, oedd ydych'n eddw'n cynnddwyn i'ny ddeaf unf υgodfnychd yn yddwyn,
[29:49] fy oedd yn hynn ddeaf unfifyd i'r fasoddu yn ddeaf unfifyd i'n myr gweith,
[29:55] boedd mae g� y ddydym oedd gyresdyn,
[29:57] oedd gwrl, eich rof ddim ddeaf unfifyd i'r yddwyn.
[30:00] Whether they're in Henrico, we want to build a commercial note to those folks, you know, can walk over and get a cup of coffee or buy a newspaper.
[30:07] And I thought maybe that area has changed a lot since I last went through there. So I've driven through there a few times over the last months.
[30:15] And that doesn't seem to me to make sense. And my concern is if there's no plan, am I understanding there isn't any plan to expand utilities beyond 33,
[30:26] for five years or way beyond, that to make this extension and that make this addition to the
[30:34] suburban service area now is premature, that we know we'll do another update in five years,
[30:40] it seems to me that would be the time, let's consider it then, if in fact, there's no way
[30:46] we're going to run utilities to it in that time frame, because I am concerned about any expansion
[30:52] of the suburban service area, and particularly about the pressure that that will create in that
[30:57] area for that Henrico short pump, Western style development to be pushed over in the hand
[31:03] over.
[31:04] And I think we need more time and a longer discussion for that.
[31:07] So I would ask that that not be included in this update.
[31:10] So thank you.
[31:12] Thank you.
[31:16] I don't owe my speakers for the night.
[31:22] Yes, sir.
[31:23] Yes, ma'am.
[31:24] I'll let her go first.
[31:29] I'm Mary Lynn White from the Chick-Homony District
[31:32] who lived in Hanover almost 25 years.
[31:34] I just want to make sure that the record will show
[31:36] there are over 25, 20 people here in support
[31:39] of chapter four, the healthy and active living chapter.
[31:44] And we're saving everybody's time by not repeating
[31:48] ourselves, but I was afraid maybe it wouldn't be recorded.
[31:51] So is that work?
[31:54] Yes, thank you so much. Thank you so much for your time
[31:56] and your service to the county.
[32:08] I am both a fiscal conservative and a bike rider who rides more than 1,000 miles a year
[32:15] on the back roads of Hanover County.
[32:18] I know the roads very well.
[32:20] I may have a slightly different perspective on a walk and bike plan in Chapter 4.
[32:25] I lived in Dayton, Ohio, for 13 years.
[32:28] It has hundreds of miles of walk and bike trails that were converted from old and unused
[32:34] railroad lines as part of the rails to trail movement.
[32:40] I have observed that walking by trails have more
[32:42] of the recreational benefits for a local community.
[32:45] They also have economic benefits.
[32:48] They attract people from outside the local area who
[32:50] spend money on local businesses when they come to ride the trails.
[32:54] I even saw an ice cream shop that probably made any enormous amount
[32:57] of money is probably the richest ice cream shop I've ever seen.
[33:00] If anyone has any doubt about this in Hanover County,
[33:03] consider the number of bike riders and handover who stop at Ashley and County and T or
[33:08] I'm sorry coffee and T. Also consider the growing number of neighborhood developments that now include
[33:14] walking bike trails such as Rutland. Home builders believe that trails add value and benefits to their
[33:21] neighborhoods which adds value to home prices. I don't like to waste tax dollars anymore than the next
[33:27] person. But I believe that based on real-world experience that walking and bike and trails have a
[33:32] turn on investments in the community that goes beyond health and recreational benefits.
[33:38] They also have important economic benefits.
[33:41] Thank you for listening.
[33:44] Okay, I'm there going to close citizens' time.
[33:48] Before we get into the commissioners, Mr. Maloney, do you prepare to address the points
[33:55] that were brought up by the citizens?
[33:57] Mr. Chairman, at this point, I think I would prefer to address any questions that
[34:04] commission may have regarding questions you all have, and issues that the citizens have raised
[34:12] this evening.
[34:15] Then we'll open up for the commissioners.
[34:19] And the commission won't be recognized, and they come as I have questions to the led
[34:25] button.
[34:26] I'd like to first of all thank everybody for coming out and participating.
[34:31] I know Mr. Nelson has been here and been very involved in the process and Mr. and Mrs. Wayne
[34:38] Field and a lot of others have been forwarded throughout the whole process and we really
[34:43] appreciate you and put it and appreciate all the work you all have done and the basis you
[34:48] have given us for information on the biking and trails and walking paths and that type of thing.
[34:54] And I just want to appreciate and thank you all for doing that.
[34:58] I like the first thing I've got.
[35:00] The elected dress is probably Mrs. Wingfield's comments and reference to the council track and the area there at Hollis.
[35:09] We had looked at that and talked to a lot of the residents in that area.
[35:16] And we all feel nothing is going to happen in that area, probably for anywhere from attend to 20 a period, because there's absolutely no infrastructure there.
[35:24] And it's on the other side of 33 at this point, which is about eight miles away.
[35:28] So with some kind of extensive development going on in between that area, it's going to have
[35:36] to push the infrastructure to get to that point.
[35:39] And there's no projects that are right now that have come forward for that.
[35:46] The reason we were looking at making it commercial is because we didn't want it, we did not
[35:51] wanted to turn into high density housing, and that was supported by the community that lived
[35:56] in the lives in that area. The reason that we wanted to do something now is because it will
[36:03] help include the infrastructure and the size and the future projects come along in case they
[36:09] do come along within the next five years. So that is the reason behind why it was included in this
[36:17] process and I'll make a recommendation that we leave it in the plan.
[36:26] And the other comments, questions from commissions at this point.
[36:34] I'm sorry.
[36:35] I wanted to ask Mr. Maloney and if we could on that the section that we talked about in
[36:41] the transportation that we received the response from V dot and it was triggered as a result
[36:47] of the citizen concerns.
[36:49] And looking at the verbiage it appears to me that that's that's pretty much satisfies what we're looking for
[36:56] What was referenced in that concern by the citizen.
[36:59] Based on the guidance, we received from Vita.
[37:03] We do believe that including a reference to the Richmond Regional TPO
[37:08] The year 2018 transportation plan does fulfill the purpose and intent of the code.
[37:21] And bear in mind what the code states is our call and I don't have the section in front
[37:26] of me at the moment is localities are to include cost estimates for road infrastructure
[37:32] as provided by V dot.
[37:34] In our communication with V dot, their comment essentially was, we can prepare cost estimates,
[37:43] time permitting for what we have advised other localities is they look at their local and
[37:50] regional transportation funding plans and include references.
[37:54] The Hanover County Major Thurfare Plan
[37:59] is intended to address what I will call the theoretical
[38:06] build out of Hanover County. And that would be where all the
[38:11] developable land within the county is developed in accordance with
[38:15] the comprehensive plan and that includes development within the
[38:20] rural areas of the county as well as the suburban service area.
[38:25] And the reality is there's no time frame for the build out of
[38:31] Hanover County. Our policies over years and decades will inevitably
[38:37] change. And so there's really no, no feasible way and no real purpose to come up with sort
[38:50] of a theoretical cost estimate of what it would take to build out the major thoroughfare
[38:55] plan if build in accordance with our anticipated standards. So what this document references
[39:04] are those projects that are currently in the funding and construction cycle, and it not only
[39:13] includes projects in Hanover County, but throughout the Richmond Regional TPO area, which
[39:20] includes all nine jurisdictions within the Richmond region. And what we've, what citizens
[39:28] can specifically look at are the list of Hanover County projects that are funded. The document
[39:34] And it self-contains projects that actually have been completed and completed for a number
[39:40] of years.
[39:41] But if we look at just the projects that are currently in the funding process and or construction
[39:48] cycle, that amount is about 75 million dollars.
[39:52] And so we do think, again, based on guidance from Vita and consultation with our attorney
[39:58] that the addition.
[40:00] The land which has proposed fulfills the purpose in a ton of state code as it relates to the transportation plan.
[40:10] Anything else? I have one comment on one, I'm not sure which section is in the blue.
[40:18] I believe it was the third speaker who was talking about the density and the change that we've run the risk of using up available land.
[40:27] And I'm looking at a chart that was in the right path.
[40:31] And Mr. Malone, you can correct me if I'm wrong.
[40:35] It appears that we have right now over 10,000 acres
[40:38] of land that's available.
[40:40] That's land that has been zoned, or that's what is available to be zoned.
[40:47] That's land that's available to be developed.
[40:52] And I'm looking at Mr. Garmin a moment.
[40:54] But my recollection, that includes both land that's been zoned, but undeveloped as well as
[41:02] unzoned land that's positioned to be developed for resident purposes.
[41:06] So if I'm looking at this chart, depending on the density, whether it's 1, 2, 3, 4,
[41:14] we would have a minimum worst-case scenario of 18 years of available land right now.
[41:21] That's what in best case scenario is we could have as much as 76 years.
[41:25] Potentially based on our planning metrics. That's correct.
[41:28] So the likelihood of using that up in a time soon is pretty remote.
[41:33] I would say it's very likely remote.
[41:37] And again, based on historic growth patterns,
[41:42] we believe we have decades worth of available land for development.
[41:48] And as a practical matter, the average density within the sperm and service area, we have
[41:54] planned a three units per acre average density.
[41:57] We now, because of the various land use designations, they're going to be projects that are
[42:02] higher than three units per acre and also projects lower than three units per acre.
[42:07] But we're confident that for decades to come, we will have sufficient capacity within the
[42:13] sperm and service area.
[42:15] Okay.
[42:17] There we go.
[42:19] Just for some clarity, Mr. Maloney.
[42:22] The 10,000 acres you're talking about is,
[42:23] it's a suburban service area only.
[42:25] Not the entire car.
[42:26] That is correct.
[42:27] Okay, thank you.
[42:31] Any other comments from anyone?
[42:34] Mr. McGee.
[42:35] I'd like to, once again, lean on Mr. Maloney.
[42:38] If you could, could you please,
[42:40] for Mr. Kipers, benefit and others,
[42:43] maybe articulate briefly why,
[42:45] the reasoning for the positioning of the park and coal harbor and the potential stormwater run off
[42:51] concerns. Certainly.
[42:55] Certainly the facilities that are planned with that park will support
[43:01] chapter 4. But I think it's important to note that chapter 4 obviously it's in draft form now.
[43:10] The planning for this park, the negotiation with the property owner for the acquisition and the land,
[43:15] He's taking place over many years.
[43:18] However, County does have a Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and that plan is reflected
[43:25] in the Park Facilities Plan of the Comprehensive Plan.
[43:29] There's been a planned East End Regional Park in both the Department's Master Plan as
[43:38] well as the Comprehensive Plan.
[43:40] The county was able to identify property that appeared to be suitable for the development
[43:45] of the park. A number of years ago, that property has been acquired by Hanover County
[43:51] and the Parks and Recreation Department are in the early phases of development.
[43:57] Having said that prior to the park actually being constructed, has to go through a
[44:10] from the Planck Commission Board Supervisors, a detailed master plan of that project has to be approved by the Board.
[44:18] The citizens have an opportunity to weigh in on that and guide how that park is to be developed.
[44:28] So, although we are in the process of planning for that park, there are still a number of steps that have to be taken for its actual construction development.
[44:40] With regard to stormwater management, any project in Hanover County has to apply with the county's stormwater mitigation requirements.
[44:52] We have to control both the quality of water, leaving a site, post development as well as the...
[45:00] Quantity of water leaving the site. One of the advantages of a park is that relative to the entire area
[45:09] of the project, there is relatively little impervious area. Now, there may be a change in land cover,
[45:15] which necessitates a modification as to the calculations regarding the amount of runoff.
[45:21] But, for the most part, a vast majority of the land cover will still be pervious surface
[45:27] rather than impervious surface.
[45:30] So I'm confident that the engineers designing the park will not only design a stormwater
[45:37] management system that meets the water quality issues, but addresses downstream water quantity
[45:44] issues as well.
[45:45] And
[45:50] what you're saying, the park will go through all of its, through us, the board, and everything before it's actually approved.
[45:59] That is correct.
[46:01] Thank you.
[46:03] I have, um, anyone else having a comment on the park section?
[46:09] I have a couple of comments on the section four, okay?
[46:16] In looking at this, what comes to mind, and Mr. Nelson mentioned this too, is how you go
[46:24] about funding this.
[46:27] I mean, the end of the district, and everybody wants to pull green road widen, you know?
[46:32] So, where do we get the money to do that?
[46:34] That's number one.
[46:37] In this section,
[46:42] I'm not sure, I like how we are proposing to go about deciding which
[46:47] developments will comply with this, and I'm referring me to the complete streets, this
[46:52] mentioned in section four.
[46:55] How do we determine which developments will have to comply with that?
[47:00] And don't we already address some of this if you go to the transportation section?
[47:05] on the transportation where it has goals, the goal of the section.
[47:11] I'm just going to read two sentences.
[47:12] A transportation system that supports and enhances the quality of life,
[47:17] for hand of a candidate citizens and businesses characterized by the following.
[47:23] Convenient and accessible, multimedia, mobile networks that allow the movement of people and goods efficiently.
[47:31] We already addressing that in transportation.
[47:35] We are indirectly addressing it in transportation.
[47:41] Let me start with your last statement.
[47:44] Worked towards the beginning of your question if I may, Mr. Chairman.
[47:48] In terms of multimodal and transportation planning,
[47:54] That typically refers to multiple modes of transportation to facilitate the movement of people in goods, but it's primarily focused on motorized transportation.
[48:12] So an example would be if we were, let's just say for the sake of discussion, if we were more urbanized locality.
[48:21] Does our transportation network have facilities that will support conventional motor vehicles both passenger and commercial motor vehicles?
[48:34] Will it have facilities and will it be designed to accommodate public transportation, whether it be some sort of a light rail system or bus or what have you?
[48:46] Will those facilities be connected to ports and airports to allow the efficient movement of people and goods from, say, manufacturing across the road, across the roadways to a rail facility or a port facility or an airport facility so that the mode of transportation or shipping changes based on the need of the shipper.
[49:15] And so it really refers to more of a, if you will, a mechanized or motorized, interconnected
[49:24] transportation system.
[49:27] If we talk about complete streets, we're really focused on a holistic scalable approach
[49:37] to how we design and build public rights of way.
[49:43] So, rather than designing a neighborhood road, exclusively for the use of motor vehicles within that neighborhood,
[49:54] is that road designed to also safely accommodate bicyclists.
[50:00] And or pedestrians. And so we're really focused on the design of the right of way itself.
[50:08] And the importance of a complete street concept in the context of Hanover County and our long-term funding is that there are a number of existing policies and requirements, both local and at the state level,
[50:26] that really mandate us to pay close attention as to how we plan roads in the future.
[50:37] So for instance, as part of the Smart Scale Funding Program,
[50:46] road improvement projects that
[50:48] are to receive state funding, there is a premise in the funding formulas that those facilities
[50:56] will contain bicycle and or pedestrian facilities. That's sort of off the top.
[51:02] VDOT says, when you plan an expansion or an improvement to at least a station road or
[51:07] sliding hill road or pole green road, you have to take into consideration to consider and
[51:12] design for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. In an example of where that was put into
[51:20] implementation was the improvement to the Sliding Hill,
[51:24] Newshake Road Intersection, where there are very specific
[51:29] marked bike lanes for that improved section of road.
[51:33] Now, localities in the state can opt out of designing
[51:37] for those things, provided there's a determination that the
[51:47] percent of the project cost, the estimated project cost, if that's the case, then the
[51:54] locality can automatically opt out and say, now we don't believe this project qualifies.
[52:02] From a local standpoint, well, let me state the state level.
[52:09] from a neighborhood or subdivision transportation policy,
[52:15] V.Now requires roads be stubbed to its external boundaries.
[52:21] And where existing connections exist,
[52:24] connect into those adjacent neighborhoods,
[52:28] and failure to abide by those requirements,
[52:32] the developer and locality, in this case, Hanover County,
[52:36] risk the possibility that the road will not be accepted
[52:40] into the state system for maintenance, which means, in essence,
[52:44] there's subdivision roads become private roads.
[52:47] So VDOT already has policies both at the funding level,
[52:51] and at the neighborhood road design level,
[52:55] for the facilitation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
[53:01] and their subdivision road standards also have requirements for sidewalks.
[53:05] In Hanover County, our residential zoning districts, which include the RS, RM, and MX zoning districts,
[53:14] and we're really confined this conversation to the primarily suburban service area, we have
[53:20] requirements that those neighborhoods include pedestrian pathways or sidewalks along the external
[53:27] a thoroughfare buffer and internal sidewalks.
[53:31] So at the local level, we also have policies
[53:33] that require the improvements for pedestrians.
[53:40] So really, when we talk about complete streets,
[53:43] what we're really attempting to do
[53:46] and the staff's recommendation with the staff plan
[53:49] is to recognize these various policies exist
[53:53] And to ensure that when we plan roads, when we plan neighborhoods, when we take, when we consider
[54:02] a zoning case, that we are looking holistically at all of these policies, both at the state and
[54:09] local level, and ensuring that we have an efficient transportation system within the public
[54:15] right of way that meets the users of motor vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists.
[54:21] Those policies are in place, really what's intended is to draw deliberate attention to those policies to ensure that we are building communities that are sustainable and that meet the needs of the residents and fulfill the various state local policies.
[54:42] So, if we are to have a policy on the, within the subdivision for the sidewalks, why do we need this section?
[54:52] Well, I think it comes up to, I think there are a number of ways that we can...
[55:01] Peel this onion, so to speak. We can certainly include policies and hands policies in the major
[55:09] thoroughfare plan. But part of this, the intent of this chapter, goes beyond simply transportation. And
[55:19] it really addresses the concepts raised by and forgive me if I get your name incorrect. I wrote down Mr.
[55:28] the latest speaker, that it really goes to the point of creating vibrant neighborhoods, creating
[55:36] neighborhoods that are desirable for people to move into that are sustainable, that provide
[55:44] inner connection in the promote a healthy lifestyle.
[55:50] Study after study suggests that where these facilities are purposely built into communities,
[55:55] is whether it's a suburban location or locality, such as Hanover County, or the middle
[56:02] of an urban core, where there are strong bicycle and pedestrian facilities, where they
[56:07] link to existing businesses and jobs, where they link to planned public spaces.
[56:17] The values
[56:17] of those communities are substantially higher than comparable values in communities where
[56:25] those types of facilities are lacking. And so, yes, it does address transportation but it
[56:32] also addresses the economic and long range viability of a community and it addresses the
[56:38] our ability of community, and it also addresses very specifically the public health of the
[56:46] community. If you look at the public health ratings for Hanover County, we don't fare very
[56:52] well. And much of the elements that arise on our health assessment such as type 2 diabetes, such
[56:59] as hypertension, such as cardiovascular disease are directly attributable to lack of exercise
[57:07] and lack of access to alternative modes of mobility.
[57:16] And so I can only speak to what we have heard expressed from the residents.
[57:23] The Bike Walk Committee, last spring, sponsored a survey.
[57:29] I believe 94.96% of the respondents were hand over residents.
[57:37] Well, over 80% of the respondents supported planning for these very sorts of facilities.
[57:44] There is currently a petition circulated as Mr. Weilin stated.
[57:53] After a week, 450 residents have signed that petition.
[57:57] And there is a demand for these facilities.
[57:59] I had the opportunity with Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Hedra, to conduct a small focus group with
[58:06] the assistance of the U.L.I. urban landings to young leaders group.
[58:11] It was held at CO2 Brewery last summer.
[58:15] And I'm guessing there were maybe close to 2,000 younger millennials in attendance.
[58:25] And to the person,
[58:30] the communities they said they were attracted to were those communities
[58:34] that were walkable that had access to amenities, shopping, dining, access to local food sources.
[58:43] They were not attracted to the short pump town centers.
[58:46] They were not attracted to subdivisions that lacked this sort of infrastructure that we're
[58:52] discussing tonight.
[58:55] Smaller street, smaller local businesses, and what this section of the plan is intended to accomplish is again provide guidance to directly steer our planning efforts so that we give a critical eye.
[59:14] You asked Mr. Chairman, how do we know which communities to apply these standards to?
[59:20] And the responses, I don't know, until we have applications.
[59:26] We received an application yesterday for a very large community.
[59:30] It'll be clearly the largest community that we have planned in Hanover County
[59:35] if it is successful and goes through the process.
[59:39] I would suggest a neighborhood like the one being proposed is a prime candidate
[59:45] for a critical view of a complete street policy.
[59:50] If it's a small 20-lot RS subdivision
[59:55] the suburban service area to the extent we can connect to
[1:00:00] Individual neighborhoods, we would certainly endeavor to do that. Do we need an extensive improvements
[1:00:08] to the public right of way beyond sidewalks and internal subdivision, probably not? So sort
[1:00:16] of the scale and character of the development being proposed. I think is going to help us guide our decision
[1:00:23] making if this chapter is in fact included, but I think the important takeaway is that
[1:00:32] these concepts are scalable. It is not a one-size-fits-all policy. We know that there
[1:00:39] are fiscal constraints and are transportation planning efforts and there is no effort on
[1:00:46] the part of staff to ignore those very real needs, but where we can, where we should
[1:00:53] and where we have the ability to plan for a more cohesive, holistic, transportation network.
[1:01:04] Frankly, I would say it's our obligation to do that.
[1:01:07] And that's what this chapter will help us guide those decisions in the future.
[1:01:13] I'm just sitting here thinking, would that not encourage a developer?
[1:01:19] perhaps to look at the perimeter of the SSA versus coming in close to say up near King's
[1:01:28] charter where maybe they would have to do that, to go outside where they probably would
[1:01:32] not have to do that. And what's that going to do if we're going to include Mike walks and
[1:01:39] benches, what does that do to the cost of the housing and the development?
[1:01:42] Well, clearly cost is cost and that's a hard issue.
[1:01:51] I don't, I would be hesitant to take a path that looks solely at the least common denominator.
[1:02:00] My view is in terms of any improvement, whether it's community development or self-improvement,
[1:02:08] you don't raise the bar by lowering the bar.
[1:02:10] And, again, I believe that by including this chapter, we are raising the bar, which means we are raising the value of development.
[1:02:21] We are raising the desirability of development in Hanover County.
[1:02:28] Well, I agree with you. I'm not against bike pass or anything like that.
[1:02:31] It just seems the way it is now, that it's very subjective on who's going to have to comply.
[1:02:37] Well, here again, I think we will end up taking that on a case by case basis.
[1:02:44] The lead, but I'd like to make some comments on that as well.
[1:02:49] I've made a list of some comments.
[1:02:51] I'd like to just go over with a low men chair with everybody.
[1:02:55] And I don't want anybody to construe this as I'm negative against healthy living.
[1:02:59] I don't have anybody that would be against healthy living.
[1:03:02] So I think the objective here is to finally exactly what we have in this document.
[1:03:06] But whether we go from here and how do we make it, the objective here is to benefit all parties.
[1:03:13] We need to benefit the citizens that want to bike paths that want to sidewalks.
[1:03:18] We need to benefit the applicants that have to plough for these projects so that they can make it
[1:03:22] feasible for them to do so otherwise we don't have a project.
[1:03:26] We also, one of the main problems we have in this county is transportation and in negative
[1:03:31] impacts of transportation every time we build something.
[1:03:33] So, we have to benefit the transportation side of this.
[1:03:41] We cannot have this, have any kind of negative impact on transportation because it will probably
[1:03:46] kill most of these projects.
[1:03:49] So, with those comments being said, what I see we have here, and I'm just going ask for
[1:03:55] for you by assumption whether it's correct or not, I view these objectives and strategies
[1:04:00] and goals and desires, but I do not see enough detail to actually implement any of this into
[1:04:06] any kind of policy. Is that a correct assumption from what I'm reading in this?
[1:04:13] I think that's your reading. I think this staff would say this does provide direction for
[1:04:19] implementation.
[1:04:23] And bear in mind, the conference plan is intended to be a general plan.
[1:04:28] I agree. The only problem I have with that assumption is that the other sections I see
[1:04:34] in this conference plan have detail. And I think applicants have a good intent on what
[1:04:43] the detail and what is expected for them to apply for a certain project. I don't see enough
[1:04:49] detail in this section of that direction. I don't know if I'm looking at it. I don't
[1:04:57] don't know how would know how to build a project.
[1:05:00] And we just made the statement that it's not going to apply. So the next question I have is, who has the discretion
[1:05:09] that assumption as to which projects they apply to? Ultimately, it'll be the Board of Supervisors.
[1:05:17] Is this considered a policy going into?
[1:05:25] The conference plan as a document is a policy, so I would have to say the answer is yes.
[1:05:36] inclusive through a whole hell of a county or just in the suburb of the service.
[1:05:43] The active living in terms of the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure is really confined to the suburban service area.
[1:05:54] We understand issues associated with connectivity in the rural areas of the county, lack of density, lack of other amenities to utilize these facilities.
[1:06:05] So now I wouldn't envision these policies to be implemented county-wide.
[1:06:16] The question is, how does the town of Ashland play into this scenario?
[1:06:22] Well, we certainly tried to coordinate our planning efforts on the borders of the county and the town.
[1:06:32] And here again, I think we'd have to discuss specifics on somewhat of a case by case basis,
[1:06:39] but the town has gone on record, supporting the settlement of the comprehensive plan.
[1:06:50] So I think we would have some very interesting opportunities to better coordinate transportation
[1:06:58] of slowies with the town, if the section were included in the plan.
[1:07:04] I have some very deep concerns with the implement policy based on the vagueness of what I think it needs a lot more work to.
[1:07:16] And staff would be happy to make any adjustments.
[1:07:21] Are there any specific, and I don't mean exact language, but are there any specific areas concerned that staff can go back and evaluate?
[1:07:31] I hope think we're going to evaluate by the time we have to vote on this and move this
[1:07:38] complaint forward.
[1:07:39] I think this is a very complex issue and I think it's it changes from project to project
[1:07:47] just like we've mentioned.
[1:07:49] I think it's going to take a lot of thought process and a lot of detail and a lot of people
[1:07:54] involved in it in order to get it right.
[1:07:56] I brought a article, you know, if Mr. Garmin would put that up on the screen and it's basically
[1:08:05] Mrs. Blandon and Mrs. Wingfield and their group invited me to a meeting in the head of
[1:08:14] Speaker there that is actually has a background in planning and also his engineer. He's got
[1:08:21] a company called Strong Towns and he goes across the United States speaking and looks at issues
[1:08:27] that problems that towns have in this type of thing with the way infrastructure is done,
[1:08:33] the way things are financed and very good. It was a very out and an experience. I really
[1:08:40] appreciate you all for inviting me to that as well. But I'd like to just pull this up just to go
[1:08:45] a couple of points, if you could get to the first map, let me
[1:08:53] keep going.
[1:08:56] This map right here is based on a complete street, and I believe it's in Ohio somewhere.
[1:09:05] Based on what you see right here, there's some comments made, there's a Megat McDonald's
[1:09:09] in a Taco Bell, and they're basically adjacent to each other, and the right of this made
[1:09:17] a very good point.
[1:09:18] If you go into McDonald's and you decide on the way, within five or feet, you'd rather go
[1:09:23] to Taco Bell, you can't get there.
[1:09:27] You're caught in a maze of roundabouts, turn around.
[1:09:31] This was designed for a complete street and it was designed with the help of the National
[1:09:36] Complete Street Coalition.
[1:09:39] And I think this is a very excessive example what could happen.
[1:09:44] I don't think this would happen here because I think there's too many people that know
[1:09:47] going on involved in it. But I think another aspect that that bothers me, if federal input
[1:09:55] gets into it, this is what encourages this type of thing, because you have people involved in it.
[1:10:00] All right, they do not live here that make decisions that you have to live with. So I wanted to bring this map in. And this is a real picture. This is not something that was drawn up. This is an actual project that was built and you can see that it is a very expensive multi-million dollar project. If you scroll down, lean, go to, you can go ahead and go to the next scene. This is going down a similar situation of smudge rate. And you can see how confused and it is by just saying,
[1:10:29] looking at the street, as to where you go and the small mediums and all the traffic sands and
[1:10:38] so forth. We're all down to the last page.
[1:10:44] Here you have a, I'll go back to this. Here you
[1:10:47] have a bike path that just stops because they don't have easements and so forth to give to other
[1:10:52] places at this point. And I know that may be in the future. I'm not saying this, not in the future.
[1:10:57] But go to the last, back, back up, back up,
[1:11:06] they have to throw it here.
[1:11:08] And I think this is very, very important, it says, there's another lesson, we're not going
[1:11:13] to create places that have account of found grain, attention to detail, necessary to make
[1:11:17] them productive through centralized program, mandating, walkable, bikeable design.
[1:11:22] We might do a small bit of good in some areas, but until we bust up the shallow delivery system,
[1:11:28] But this kind of thing will dominate, even if it's not obvious, building successful places
[1:11:33] as a complex undertaking, there is no cookbook or manual that can accomplish it.
[1:11:39] And therefore, whether we like it or not, it's going to have to be done primarily at the
[1:11:43] block neighborhood community level.
[1:11:45] And I agree with that statement, I know it's not politically correct, but I don't know
[1:11:49] that it needs to be.
[1:11:50] I think it gets the point across that we need to do this only local level.
[1:11:54] And I think we need to come up with those solutions prior to trying to implement policy
[1:12:00] to live it forward.
[1:12:06] Mr. Chairman, if I may.
[1:12:08] Yes, sir.
[1:12:08] I think that's exactly what we're doing by including this.
[1:12:12] This hasn't been mandated to us by the federal government.
[1:12:15] It hasn't been mandated to the state government.
[1:12:18] This has been developed at the grassroots level with the involvement of an active citizen
[1:12:23] committee, it's reached out to other citizens and has gained widespread community support.
[1:12:30] This is Hanover County's comprehensive plan.
[1:12:33] It's not a federal plan.
[1:12:34] It's not a state plan.
[1:12:35] It's a plan that was devised here in Hanover County by Hanover County staff with the
[1:12:40] input of the residents and with input from the Planning Commission.
[1:12:45] And so I agree with this statement, and one size fits all, but if we're going to plan
[1:12:51] for these things at the local level, I think we've done that.
[1:13:00] I'd like to hear more input from some of the people that will be applying for these type
[1:13:05] projects to get that in the south of it, because I just see a lot of, I'm not sure how they
[1:13:12] would desire something and give it to us as part of a project that would include things that they
[1:13:24] I don't have any definition here exactly what they need to do.
[1:13:35] But I also have any questions or comments.
[1:13:46] I'm sort of with Mr. Ledbert.
[1:13:50] I'm all for the active health and lifestyle of the bike,
[1:13:56] pay us and walk in trials.
[1:13:59] I'm just concerned on how we go about implementing this particular section.
[1:14:05] And if we don't have a more definitive guideline on how it's going to be implemented.
[1:14:15] I mean, I was sitting at thinking about this for the entire county and didn't realize
[1:14:18] that you said, you know, that it was just in the SSA, but we don't say that in this
[1:14:22] section.
[1:14:23] Unless I overlooked it.
[1:14:30] I think staff would ask for guidance from the Planning Commission what greater specificity
[1:14:38] you would like in the plan.
[1:14:43] Well, I mean, I'm sorry.
[1:14:44] Go ahead, Mr. David.
[1:14:45] Well, there are a couple of areas that I always
[1:14:47] concerned about, and there's a lot of things I agree with Mr. Ledbear and some of the specific
[1:14:56] things. I don't want to throw the bat baby out with the bath water, but it's the same time.
[1:15:00] Some of the verbiage that I read throughout it, and a question got asked, is this policy? Well, that's specifically what's referenced
[1:15:09] in throughout this document throughout the draft. The, and it's being recommended that the planning commission in the Warsaw Supervisors implement these policies has dictated by this organization, although not specifically mentioned.
[1:15:26] And I can't think of, I don't recall the name of the organization, but this standards,
[1:15:31] if you go online, you see many of the phrases in the terms, incorporate into this,
[1:15:37] the draft that is also outlined in their website.
[1:15:45] Also retrofitting.
[1:15:46] That's referenced on page 4.
[1:15:48] I would strongly suggest any reference to retrofitting be shied away from.
[1:15:56] You know, that we can't get roads done and improvements done to roads as it is.
[1:16:04] To start retrofitting, and I'm still not 100% sure whether the funding aspect got answered.
[1:16:13] I've heard two suggestions, as we've talked about this, one being with Vietot that there's
[1:16:20] there, and there are certain things there that would help fund some of these projects.
[1:16:26] And then I've also heard, well, some of it would come from the developers, well, as I
[1:16:32] thought about that, you know, that's going to cause the,
[1:16:38] they're not going to do it for free.
[1:16:40] And the bottom line is those funds are going to be attached somewhere, and that's going
[1:16:44] attach to the price of homes. I speculate. That's my own opinion. It's speculation. Well,
[1:16:52] during this entire process, in all our community meetings, we've heard over and over again,
[1:16:56] we need to really be considering the availability of less expensive housing in the county.
[1:17:00] Well, that's just up in the prices of homes.
[1:17:07] I, again, I don't want to throw the baby out with a
[1:17:14] But, and I enjoyed it, but I think if we could make some things, and I like what you did
[1:17:23] say, Mr. Maloney, and it's a holistic approach.
[1:17:27] Well, and we're not trying to be very real, real specific.
[1:17:32] The plant plans not designed for that.
[1:17:34] But I think we could be a little bit more phrase things and articulate what we have in mind
[1:17:45] without making things as if it's man, it's going to be mandated.
[1:17:49] And that's the impression that I get, as I read through this,
[1:17:54] and I've read it several times.
[1:17:56] And I keep thinking, I'm being mandated.
[1:18:00] If I'm a citizen, I'm being mandated to,
[1:18:04] I've got to have a healthy life.
[1:18:05] I've got to do this through this, what's written here?
[1:18:10] And, but I'd like to see it if we can work on some things to save the context,
[1:18:16] save the holistic aspect of it, but maybe just tone it down a little bit, I think.
[1:18:26] That's my thoughts.
[1:18:33] Is it possible to move this through without it becoming mandated policy?
[1:18:40] The plan commission can recommend any modification of the plan to the board if that's your desire.
[1:18:47] If you'd like to eliminate the section that certainly you're prerogative.
[1:18:50] Because I don't think we'll get to the point within the next week when we may be looking at it.
[1:18:58] I think it's going to take a lot more work to get it to the point where I feel like it should be, obviously.
[1:19:05] because I think we need a realistic expectation of any applicant that wants to build a project that
[1:19:13] may need to include this as being part of the project.
[1:19:19] Because if I was an applicant and I had to go submit a set of conceptual drawings to the
[1:19:25] plan department, based on this right here, I'm not sure that I would know where to start.
[1:19:29] We
[1:19:33] need some of these things in here, but there's a lot in my opinion, Mr. Chairman.
[1:19:43] I haven't weighed in on this, but I do think there's something that's important for the commission to remember as we go forward.
[1:19:50] And it's been touched on a little bit, and that is that the comprehensive plan is really, while it may be a policy, it really does not mandate anything.
[1:20:00] Other than, if an application comes in, what that application is expected to address. And we have multiple sections in our comprehensive plan that deal with things like environmental resources, historic resources, that really, it's impossible to mandate anything because throughout the county those resources are different.
[1:20:25] It's an expectation that the zoning ordinance and the subdivision ordinance are going to contain those technical details.
[1:20:32] So if someone comes in and they want to know what a pedestrian path they should include,
[1:20:38] the comprehensive plan will never tell them what that is supposed to be.
[1:20:41] That's not what it is intended to do.
[1:20:43] The zoning ordinance will say it needs to be in a certain location, in a certain size, constructed of a certain material.
[1:20:50] And if it's not there, then it's a consideration.
[1:20:54] So if someone were to come in now with say Rutland,
[1:20:56] which was not done under this, with a comprehensive plan
[1:21:01] that stated this, there would be an expectation
[1:21:06] that these issues would be addressed.
[1:21:09] So they would say, so for instance,
[1:21:12] there's one here about sidewalks.
[1:21:14] So the question is, we intend to provide sidewalks
[1:21:18] pedestrian and bicycle use. There's crosswalks. To my knowledge, I think there's one crosswalk in
[1:21:25] Rutland. If that were to come in now, arguably the developer may want to provide more of those.
[1:21:31] There have been a number of developments since Rutland that have shown that crosswalks can be
[1:21:37] very useful. That's not a requirement in our zoning ordinance. So if a developer did not come in with that,
[1:21:45] It would not be an automatic disqualification unless the zoning ordinance said,
[1:21:49] you need to provide A, B, C, and D. So my concern and the biggest issue that always comes
[1:21:56] up for the Planning Commission and ultimately the Board of Supervisors is you will make that
[1:22:00] subjective decision all the time because the main thing is whether a community is harmonious
[1:22:06] with the neighboring communities. There is no way that you could put in a comprehensive plan
[1:22:11] how one defines what a harmonious area is.
[1:22:18] You can provide criteria for that.
[1:22:21] House development size, road networks, appearance, viewsheds.
[1:22:26] Those are all things that can be provided for,
[1:22:30] but you can't expect that a comprehensive plan
[1:22:34] is going to provide that much detail.
[1:22:36] And I would, as for Council with the Land Commission,
[1:22:39] And we would recommend that you never get into that much detail, because what that winds
[1:22:43] of doing is ties your hands when it comes time to create zoning districts, to create subdivision
[1:22:50] regulations.
[1:22:51] In essence, then your comprehensive plan is your zoning ordinance and your subdivision
[1:22:55] ordinance put together.
[1:22:57] And that's not what it's intended to.
[1:22:58] It's intended to create an expectation of the current and future needs of an area, as
[1:23:03] well as the community's expectations for how things are going to change in the future.
[1:23:06] And if you wait until you have the technical details all set out, you really aren't planning ahead you're just stating the policies that you already have in place.
[1:23:18] And part of the part of a comprehensive plan is to be aspirational is to show the changing of a community for the better over time.
[1:23:25] And so I, certainly, it's up to the commission as to whether it would include this or not.
[1:23:30] I would suggest that we really don't want to get too much into detail.
[1:23:34] So any recommendations for staff to come back, I think if there's areas that you don't think are appropriate.
[1:23:40] Certainly, that's good to give direction to.
[1:23:43] But to come back and say, well, what do all of these various things mean?
[1:23:47] That sounds more like a zoning ordinance implementation than a comprehensive plan.
[1:23:53] I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
[1:23:56] So based on what you just said of Apple comes and looks at,
[1:24:00] provide you a conceptual set of drawings,
[1:24:03] then you would base the policy on the zoning on it,
[1:24:07] not the comprehensive plan.
[1:24:09] They work in tandem.
[1:24:10] So for instance, if an applicant who is in the high-less area,
[1:24:15] where there is not a whole lot of development,
[1:24:17] we're saying we think that bicyclists are primarily
[1:24:21] going to use the area along Ashland Road, more so than the internal ones, they may come in
[1:24:26] with something that shows that, but say, you know, there's probably not going to be a whole
[1:24:30] lot of internal cross traffic. So we may not include crosswalks, whereas if you're in old
[1:24:37] mechanicsville, where more people are going to be walking than bicycling likely, you may
[1:24:41] want to have more pedestrian ones. So they're on the list of things that you need to address,
[1:24:47] as well as the reasons why you're not addressing that. You may say it's not appropriate here.
[1:24:50] And that's entirely possible for an applicant to come in.
[1:24:54] The applicant can come in and say none of these seem to be appropriate here.
[1:24:57] And if the planning commission and the Board of Supervisors may...
[1:25:00] The determination, so long as it's not inconsistent with our zoning regulations, that's fine. That's perfectly
[1:25:05] defensible and that's why you have them in here so that their areas of consideration not requirements
[1:25:11] for approval.
[1:25:16] Hold in, temp, is I'm in favor of trying to get Mike Pass, walkways, anything we need for
[1:25:22] healthy living, but I want to make sure that we've got documentation. The gifts us there
[1:25:29] without going through wasted expense trying to figure out in the process what we're trying to do.
[1:25:36] Mr. Chairman, if I may, if I could draw the Planock missions attention to page 2 of Section 4,
[1:25:45] in the middle of that page is a chart that details the elements of a complete street.
[1:25:54] And I view that similar to a menu, not a checklist, but rather a menu.
[1:26:01] And so in the first column we have facilities promoting safe travel for all users, which
[1:26:06] can include sidewalks, shared-use path bike lanes, paved shoulders.
[1:26:11] Nothing in that column suggests that a road design has to include all of those elements, but
[1:26:19] rather those are elements that could be considered.
[1:26:22] Safe road crossings improved by accessible curb ramps, crosswalks, refugee
[1:26:28] islands, pedestrian signals and signage. All of those options aren't applicable on
[1:26:35] all types of roads. If we wanted to put a pedestrian signal with a crosswalk in the
[1:26:43] middle of Rutland because we thought it was a good idea, we couldn't do it if we
[1:26:48] So there are specific design criteria that dictate how and when those sorts of facilities
[1:27:01] can be implemented.
[1:27:05] Third column, street design options promoting safety and comfort, buffers and separation
[1:27:11] between vehicles and a path, narrow vehicle lanes, road diets, street connectivity, traffic
[1:27:18] calming circles.
[1:27:20] Every one of those are design features that we've incorporated in a variety of projects,
[1:27:29] not every project has those.
[1:27:32] Additional features for improving bike and walking comfort, pedestrian scale lighting,
[1:27:38] bench is in street furniture, bike parking facility, street trees and landscaping.
[1:27:44] Again, in some instances we have requirements, certainly for the street trees and landscaping.
[1:27:51] We have provisions for lighting entrances and subdivisions and so forth.
[1:27:58] If the question is, how does a developer know what to plan for?
[1:28:06] in terms of good design, we can point to this and say, which one of these elements seems to fit
[1:28:17] the applicable project. Not have you included all of these elements in check the box, but
[1:28:25] is there an opportunity to incorporate any of these elements or several of these elements. And if
[1:28:34] answer is yes, then we've provided that guidance and the project moves forward.
[1:28:41] That's not dissimilar to the criteria that we use now.
[1:28:46] The difference being is we're just grabbing its draws when we're evaluating a plan with
[1:28:53] the developer and making recommendations.
[1:28:56] We say, hey, it'd be nice to have a crosswalker, it'd be nice to put some benches here
[1:29:01] what have you.
[1:29:02] That's just a good idea.
[1:29:03] We have no documentation suggesting there is a rationale to include that feature other than it seems like a good idea.
[1:29:14] To me that's very subjective.
[1:29:17] By including a menu of options to be considered, not to be mandated, but to be considered,
[1:29:23] that's the sort of guidance that we see answering the questions Mr. Ledbetter is raised.
[1:29:30] we've included examples of many of these types of facilities.
[1:29:40] Mr. Hader, you spoke, I'm
[1:29:42] moving forward to page four about concerns about retrofitting. We know of one community right now
[1:29:50] that has expressed an interest in retrofitting and existing thoroughfare road through that community.
[1:29:59] I'm not prepared.
[1:30:00] Here to comment on how that gets funded or if it gets funded. But we have some guidance as to the type of
[1:30:07] retrofitting that could be accomplished and provide guidance to that particular neighborhood. Again, these are intended
[1:30:17] to be guidelines, not mandates.
[1:30:21] And again, I think staff would just simply request specific
[1:30:27] guidance. We have no objection, modifying, evaluating, strategizing on how to modify this
[1:30:37] component of the comprehensive plan. But it seems it would be a lost opportunity if
[1:30:49] in element, whether it's written exactly as proposed, but it would seem to me that we have
[1:30:56] lost opportunity, if an element addressing these various issues from transportation to bicycle
[1:31:05] and pedestrian facilities to interconnectivity to access to local businesses to healthy
[1:31:13] living wasn't included in the comprehensive plan and so we've had a number of workshops
[1:31:20] on this, and staff is simply seeking guidance from the commission so that we can come back to you all
[1:31:27] next week with some revisions.
[1:31:38] I agree. I think that with
[1:31:42] attorney, we
[1:31:44] this has to be a generalized plan. We've heard from a lot of people that this is what they want in here.
[1:31:52] We don't need to design this. We don't need to fund it. It just needs to be our aspiration.
[1:31:57] And judging by the turnout we've had, and the feedback we've had, that's what the county wants.
[1:32:05] That's what the people want.
[1:32:06] And I don't think that this is limiting any of your developers.
[1:32:12] Ashland's already put in Rogers' built Lansing Bridal, put in pathways in there,
[1:32:20] with Lord Dell and Ashland.
[1:32:23] They're putting pathways in that community as well.
[1:32:25] It's just an aspiration, it's not design.
[1:32:30] As far as I'm concerned.
[1:32:33] Can I bring up something Mr. Chairman?
[1:32:35] So Mr. Maloney, when a developer comes in,
[1:32:40] and we have some guidance like this.
[1:32:44] So I think that will help speed up the process up and help them.
[1:32:50] I mean, not that we try to speed everything up.
[1:32:52] Now, but for my perspective, it actually adds clarity in guidance.
[1:32:58] Again, the RS ordinance has certain mandates.
[1:33:02] You have to put in street trees.
[1:33:03] You have to put in thoroughfare buffers.
[1:33:05] You have to put in pedestrian paths.
[1:33:08] The ordinance itself doesn't really talk directly about interconnection
[1:33:12] with other neighborhoods and communities.
[1:33:17] That's really sort of the aspirational aspects of the comprehensive plan.
[1:33:21] Let me use a real-life example.
[1:33:26] The neighborhood I live in off-of-value station is connected to
[1:33:32] topotomy, atly-redge, castle wood,
[1:33:42] someone can travel and honeymettos and through honeymettos
[1:33:47] to the schools.
[1:33:48] So somebody can travel from the intersection of sliding hill road and autonomy trail to
[1:33:59] atly high school without going onto sliding hill road or atly road.
[1:34:09] And when I say travel, travel by foot or bicycle, there is not any vehicular interconnection.
[1:34:19] and I'll add Kingswood Court to that list as well.
[1:34:26] Understanding concerns about neighborhoods not connecting.
[1:34:31] If when topotomy and Kingswood Court and some of those somewhat older neighborhoods were planned,
[1:34:40] and we said, well, there's nothing around these neighborhoods,
[1:34:44] So we're not going to provide for interconnection.
[1:34:48] Then all of that traffic would be absolutely forced out on to
[1:34:52] Sliding Hill Road Nalli Station Road.
[1:34:55] And so nobody wants to build a road to nowhere,
[1:34:58] nobody wants to build a sidewalk to nowhere.
[1:35:00] Where there is no realistic possibility of interconnection within the foreseeable future. But we have to have some amount of foresight and look at what the development potential is not only for the subject property but adjacent properties.
[1:35:21] And that's how we base those decisions. Do we provide an interconnection or do we not provide an interconnection?
[1:35:27] And so, you know, whether it's what facilities do we include in the comprehensive plan
[1:35:37] that we negotiate as part of a development to whether or not we interconnect neighborhoods,
[1:35:44] so much that is decided as I stated on a case-by-case basis in the context of a specific
[1:35:51] development proposal. But if we don't plan for it, it's not going to happen. That's
[1:35:58] one certainty. There's a lot of certainty about what happens, how do we fund it, how is it
[1:36:04] going to be expanded if we plan for it. But what I can tell you is the certainty is if we
[1:36:10] don't plan for it, it doesn't happen. And I think those are really the two choices handover's
[1:36:16] facing. Regardless of what's in the plan, I just want to go back to the fact that from
[1:36:21] state funding standpoint from a local regulatory standpoint from a state road maintenance
[1:36:29] standpoint, these things are mandated. And so do we plan for it deliberately or do we continue
[1:36:36] to approach it on an ad hoc basis like we've done for many years? And that's really the question
[1:36:42] facing the commission.
[1:36:47] I can understand what Mr. Walter saying that it's hard to, I guess, put
[1:36:53] and exact number on how many houses have to go into a subdivision before you implement this.
[1:37:00] But I believe it was just gentleman back here, said he lived in Kohl Harbor.
[1:37:04] I can understand why, where you live in King's Charter, it's nice to have those
[1:37:11] past and why the streets pedestrian. But if he's in Kohl Harbor,
[1:37:17] and it's just the same. He was in Bander Runoff, a westward road.
[1:37:21] But, well, I would, we want to put something where, out there, we probably wouldn't.
[1:37:27] And the nice thing about this is a flexible plan like this, gives the planning commission
[1:37:33] to board the option to make those decisions.
[1:37:36] If we want to give the developer a very clear guideline, the easiest way to do that is mandated
[1:37:42] through ordinance.
[1:37:43] Not provide a menu of alternatives to be considered, but rather, rather than the ordinance
[1:37:48] saying, if you're going to build Norris development, you have to have ABC and D. And if we go
[1:37:54] down that path, then we end up with the very poor examples that Mr. Ledbetter has pointed
[1:37:59] out. And I don't think any of us want to go down that path.
[1:38:03] Yeah, I think that's what we're trying to avoid.
[1:38:11] For me, I would like to, and I welcome input from the other commissioners. I would like to
[1:38:19] I have some time to study this particular section a little bit more.
[1:38:23] Rather than voting on it tonight,
[1:38:25] I would like to delay the vote until our regular meeting on the 14th.
[1:38:29] That's now and days on that.
[1:38:30] Give us some time to look at it in a little more detail.
[1:38:35] And, of course, staff is happy to meet individually with any of you
[1:38:42] to identify specific concerns and make any adjustments that you feel
[1:38:47] appropriate. I'm at some anyone else. Anyone else have any objections to waiting until
[1:38:54] our regular meeting on the 14th? I don't miss a jam. It's just some of the verbiage.
[1:39:01] I mean, maybe it's just vague, but encourage, promote. It can kind of lean towards mandate.
[1:39:08] And I think if some simple verbiage could be put in, it's like this is not a mandate.
[1:39:16] This is what
[1:39:19] goal of hand over carry being a community to support physical, social, mental, well-being,
[1:39:23] is all that citizens to help create vibrant and safe places to live.
[1:39:27] I think that's us now.
[1:39:30] But that's for this policy, but just maybe some verbiage legalese that it's not a mandate
[1:39:37] to retirement.
[1:39:40] It would be my favor.
[1:39:43] I agree with Mr. McGee and you take a look at some of the areas that health impact, I don't
[1:39:50] I think anybody argues health impacts should be considered when evaluating new developments.
[1:39:55] Encourage the consideration of biking and walking facilities.
[1:39:58] That's great.
[1:40:01] Purposeful placement of open spaces which provides for various types of recreation. We talk about buffers and landscaping throughout it.
[1:40:09] We already take a lot of that in consideration when we have applications. Also, crosswalks, connectivity, proposed neighborhoods.
[1:40:17] I see those as feasible ideas, I think it is in some of the verbiage just gets to, even
[1:40:27] though according to our attorney, it's not necessarily mandated.
[1:40:33] It gives the impression that we are mandating it.
[1:40:38] And that's what I say if we could work on, I want a section like this.
[1:40:44] but I want a section that we is not making us walk out or when we have this put for us we're
[1:40:52] having to really struggle with is this something we have to have. I think staff can go through
[1:40:58] the document between now and your next meeting and reevaluate some of that language and address
[1:41:03] those concerns absolutely. I'll be happy to. I got time if you want me to come down. I'll talk with
[1:41:10] I also want to let you know.
[1:41:11] All right.
[1:41:12] How long do you think it would take to come up with something like that and get it to each of us
[1:41:17] so that we have time to look at this final language in review it prior to the meeting?
[1:41:23] I think if it's the generally speaking, if it's the wordsmithing that you, several of you have suggested,
[1:41:30] I think we could turn something around to you early next week and have a couple days before your regular December meeting.
[1:41:40] I don't think it's nothing, this is not what all of us want it, just want a little clarity on it, but we all want it, you know, anything that's better for the county.
[1:41:53] I think what we're trying to prevent is not having any clarity that the two parties that have to get together, planning and who of the applicant may be.
[1:42:08] So, and I know you made the comment as ultimately the planning commission and the board
[1:42:13] response building.
[1:42:15] The problem with that is we may not always be in those meetings when this project or what
[1:42:20] other project is being planned.
[1:42:22] So there's going to be a lot more in my opinion from what I see that we have here, a lot
[1:42:28] more frustration trying to get to the point where what you interpret this being with the
[1:42:33] in terms of being taken number of passes to get to that point.
[1:42:39] And when we start adding that cost and that timeframe,
[1:42:44] that's expense for the county as well as the applicants.
[1:42:47] And it could deter projects like this from getting built.
[1:42:54] And I understand that.
[1:42:56] And so again, if it's the desire of the commission,
[1:42:59] And then my staff and I will go back and try to add some little more clarity as to the
[1:43:06] purpose in the tent, so as to not create that potential confusion.
[1:43:15] Very complex issue.
[1:43:17] I mean, you know, I call it great.
[1:43:17] There's no one in ambiguous this way.
[1:43:19] Every piece of property is different and appreciate the capacity to develop a basis of information
[1:43:26] for exactly what those desires are on that side.
[1:43:29] So
[1:43:36] is there one in agreement that we will delay vote to the 14th and that the plan to
[1:43:43] pomegranate will have some revised wording on Section 4 midweek next week?
[1:43:53] Everybody okay with that?
[1:43:56] All right.
[1:43:57] Do we have anything on the miscellaneous?
[1:43:59] Well, I was going to ask.
[1:44:01] We've spent a considerable amount of time on Chapter 4.
[1:44:04] That's only one component of the plan.
[1:44:06] Are there any other areas of concern or discussion for the commission?
[1:44:15] That was the only hurry that I really had some concern.
[1:44:17] OK, we'll try to clarify that.
[1:44:19] OK.
[1:44:20] I think you've given us clear direction.
[1:44:24] And hopefully we will be able to provide you a product that addresses your concerns.
[1:44:30] We have anything in the miscellaneous.
[1:44:35] That was then the journey to the 14th.