[0:07] Let me call tonight's town council work session to order. The first item for discussion tonight is the fiscal year 2022 by to work session. Public works and CIP. Mara, thank you, say during talking, a little minutes tonight.

[0:28] And they have it asked for additional five minutes.

[0:33] Well, 10 together.

[0:34] Good

[0:42] evening Madam Mayor members of Council tonight as the Mayor mentioned we're here for our next budget work session tonight's topics are public works and then this six year capital improvements program so with that I'm actually going to turn it over to Renee for the public work section.

[0:57] It

[1:05] would even be not a mayor, members of Council, Renee LaFalle, Public Works Director.

[1:10] It's strange to stand up here and say only public works since since we did the split.

[1:17] So for our department, our annual budget for 2027, 23.7 million, again, the high percentage

[1:25] of that personnel, but then another big one is that trash and recycling contract last year.

[1:31] It was 20% this year, it is at 21%.

[1:35] And that larger increase for the trash

[1:37] and recycling contract was driven by the $20 per ton increase

[1:42] of TIPC for the Lab County landfill this fiscal year.

[1:48] You look at the 11 divisions that are in public works.

[1:51] This is a quick breakdown of what each division has

[1:55] within their budgets.

[1:56] The regional transportation, I don't really count

[1:59] as a division within public works is that is

[2:02] level county transit that is the safety ride is the

[2:05] dollars for that on that line item and it is in our

[2:09] budget under transportation.

[2:14] Our recent budget highlights in the operating and

[2:16] personnel from in 2025 you approved a construction

[2:20] manager for capital projects and a full time storm

[2:23] water GIS coordinator.

[2:25] We have hired that GIS coordinator and did so in

[2:28] fiscal 25, fiscal 26, you authorized the transportation engineer and the pavement and bridge manager position.

[2:36] We have been successful in hiring the transportation position.

[2:40] We did hire a transportation planner and he started an August of this year.

[2:44] We are still trying to find our pavement and bridge manager.

[2:47] We did a series of interviews and we're not able to make an offer based on that first recruitment

[2:53] that will be going back out and advertised in the next couple of weeks.

[2:57] We did our reorganization, effective July 1st,

[3:02] and separated capital projects out of public works,

[3:05] so I get to focus on one department now.

[3:09] We do have our new deputy director of operations hired.

[3:14] He started today as name as Roscoe Coles,

[3:17] and I will try and get him to a council meeting soon,

[3:20] to introduce him to you.

[3:23] Trash recycling contractual increases.

[3:25] We talked about that. The big hit this year was that $20 a ton increase for TIP fees at the

[3:31] Loudoun County landfill. They have told me verbally that we do not have an increase expected

[3:37] for fiscal 28. They're plan that they are putting forward to the Finance Committee and the Board

[3:43] of Supervisors shows TIP fees staying flat for this year. But as we know that could change after

[3:49] gets through the Finance Committee. And we are continuing to have investments in stormwater

[3:55] the payment management program. Under the capital asset replacement, thank you for keeping

[4:01] at around a million, around a million dollars. That has helped us with keeping up with the

[4:06] equal replacement facility improvements. And staff is working with both budget and procurement

[4:13] to help streamline how those monies get appropriated to us so that we can be more timely in getting

[4:20] our orders placed, since we are one of the smaller jurisdictions, sometimes we are at 12 to 18

[4:26] months from order to receipt of vehicles because we're at the end of the line. So we're working

[4:33] with them to try and speed some of that up as best we can. As far as the capital projects that

[4:38] touch public works, the town hall projects, that's a compilation of the fire system upgrade,

[4:44] which is in design now, the parking garage structural repairs which is just about complete

[4:51] we're looking at handrail and railings now and also the roof for town hall which is

[4:57] in the out years.

[4:58] You're familiar with milling and pick...

[5:00] Moving with those significant investment we've made there, townwide bridge maintenance, our signal replacements. We have two of those signal projects that will be going to construction soon.

[5:11] And then with stormwater we're in the process of doing a number of design projects there.

[5:16] You look at one metric where our public works department is FTE per lane mile.

[5:22] And if you look at the larger jurisdiction,

[5:24] monassus were very similar in lane miles

[5:26] and were also similar in staff per lane mile.

[5:31] And this is just one metric and doesn't tell the complete story for us,

[5:36] but it is a good indicator of where we are in relation

[5:39] to other public works departments that are similar in size.

[5:44] So as the seasons change,

[5:45] so does the workload and work areas of focus for the department.

[5:50] One of the interesting things is some of the overlaps that we have, where if we do crack ceiling in house, for example, that has an overlap with leaf collection and October and December, and with potential winter weather response in the end of that winter one in March, because that's the best time of your temperature wise to do the crack ceiling.

[6:13] So, some of those overlaps do create some pressures on where we focus resources within the department.

[6:24] If you look at our department based on percent of time that we spend in different areas,

[6:31] so this is based on the available number of work hours for all of the staff within the street division.

[6:38] And if you take just leaf collection, asphalt and roads, storm water and mowing that 60% of the available

[6:46] work hours for our front line staff, if you had rough collection into that were at 71% of our available hours just in those five areas of work.

[6:59] A topic near and dear to our heart, storm water, we are going to be going into the final year of our five year

[7:09] We do have a number of compliance issues and responsibilities that we need to make sure

[7:14] that we take care of during fiscal 28 completing the balance of inspections on public and private

[7:23] underground and above ground that we are responsible to get eyes on once every five years.

[7:29] So we have a number of those that we have to be ready to do.

[7:34] The VES inspection, the EES MP inspection responsibilities.

[7:39] That is every active construction site has to be inspected every other week,

[7:45] or within 24 to 48 hours after a quarter inch of rain.

[7:50] So at times, this is a very difficult inspection responsibility to meet with the staffing level.

[7:55] So we will have a task order going to the town manager shortly to have some assistance from an outside company so that we stay in compliance with that.

[8:05] The low compliance rate with private stormwater management facility owners, we only had 17% of the 94 or so private entities submit a complete inspection report to the town this year.

[8:21] So staff is working with further outreach to them and they're also working beginning to work with the town attorney's office on what our next steps are.

[8:33] That we just have our increased number of assets and our major equipment replacements that will become enough for storm water.

[8:39] Our pavement management side, we have concentrated again on the neighborhood centric.

[8:45] We've got the mill in overlay and all the concrete work done in green way and our in process in

[8:51] Ashton in over medows, they will be paving Wilson and Persian tomorrow and so far we have spent

[9:00] a million fifty one thousand dollars not counting the asphalt that will go down tomorrow and Wednesday in that

[9:09] continuing to do concrete work, we have advertised and awarded a micro-surfacing contract and

[9:16] that work will be done this spring and we also have a rejuvenation contract that we are

[9:21] working with that vendor for that work to be done in the spring as well. And where it says

[9:28] the operating money is responding to those first and then going to the capital monies which gets

[9:33] into the debt service and bonding.

[9:35] So we're spending the operational side of that work first.

[9:39] Under accomplishments, we are continuing to work

[9:42] on improving our on-time service delivery.

[9:45] We have done some streamlining work of our

[9:47] lucid work order system.

[9:49] Leaf collection last year, we had a significant decrease

[9:53] in the number of complaints.

[9:54] Then we typically get in leaf collection.

[9:56] They slightly changed how they did the...

[10:00] Election by Zones. And trash collection, we're still working with Patriot. They had a 45 day period where

[10:07] they, their computer systems completely went down. They were a victim of a ransomware attack. And they're still trying to recover from all of that.

[10:16] So a lot of the complaints that you've heard in the last two to three months had a lot to do with that, but we still have more to do on customer service with them.

[10:26] And our fleet availability through our fleet services group, we are running roughly 94-90-06% available on our fleet.

[10:38] So if the neighborhood centric paving were continuing and we did start the facility condition assessment, they have completed their inspection and assessment of all of the buildings we're waiting on the model work now.

[10:50] And to pay to challenges, are the same as last year recruitment and retention, our aging infrastructure, and our regulatory requirements going into our last year of the permit, we're not sure what our next five year permit cycle will require of the town.

[11:05] And with that, I'm available for questions.

[11:17] So I assume those responsible for maintenance of private stormwater management are aware of that,

[11:26] but the compliance rate is only 17 percent.

[11:30] Of those that more than that submitted, they didn't submit complete inspection reports or maintenance reports.

[11:38] that was only 17% that had complete records.

[11:43] So we give them another notice and another 30 days

[11:47] to get their compliance and their plan in.

[11:50] That letter has been sent and we're just starting

[11:52] to get a trickle of responses for that.

[11:55] So is this a situation that they're just becoming aware of

[12:00] the last year or two years that they've been,

[12:03] it's been a problem for a number of years.

[12:06] So now it goes to how hard can we drop the hammer for lack of a better way to put it.

[12:14] We have language in the town code that allows for fines and allows for penalties.

[12:19] So now we need to work with the town attorney's office and figure out where we are in that process.

[12:25] And when do we start implementing those fees and fines?

[12:32] out of curiosity from the state's point of view, what is our position with the state with

[12:39] of its non-compliance?

[12:42] As long as we are continuing to work with them to get them in compliance, we're good.

[12:49] They have to show that we have to reach out to them, that we're working through the process

[12:55] and then if it gets to a final position, that we are willing to then send that letter

[13:01] for fines. We've been able to get compliance without having to go the fine route before

[13:08] this year, but we haven't been this low in level of compliance as long as I can remember.

[13:19] Can you give me an idea of what kind of percentage last year we were around 53% at this

[13:26] this time of the year, but we were able to get the balance of them within compliance by sending

[13:31] another letter. This year, we're hoping we'll be able to do the same thing without having to

[13:36] let the fees and fines. Is this an annual? It is an annual certification request requirement,

[13:42] yes. And in the end, it's all on the town. It's the town's responsibility to make it ultimately, yes.

[13:50] It is not going to step in and say, okay. It's on us. Okay. Thank you.

[13:55] Thank you.

[13:58] Do you anticipate using all of the 3.8 million for paving in the script?

[14:02] Okay.

[14:03] All right.

[14:04] It's all right.

[14:05] I have a question for you.

[14:07] The county charges us.

[14:09] All right.

[14:09] Tipping fees to use the landfill.

[14:11] They charge all commercial haulers.

[14:15] And anyone actually that uses the landfill.

[14:18] So our commercial hauler was paying $55 a ton.

[14:23] They increased that by $20 a ton, so we're at $75.

[14:27] We are love county's tip fee is still significantly lower

[14:31] than Fairfax county.

[14:34] Fairfax county is over $100 a ton.

[14:37] They've always charged us.

[14:38] They've always charged us.

[14:40] We have been talking to them about maybe given us a discount.

[14:44] We have not, I'm not aware of any jurisdictions that has been able to do that with...

[14:48] We could be the first.

[14:50] We have not. They're solid waste report, and they're operational pro-rata shows that, so we could...

[15:00] We could potentially ask, but I don't think it'll go anywhere.

[15:03] There's no reason not to try. All right, anyone else? Okay, thank you very much.

[15:09] Appreciate the information.

[15:14] Good to give you back the whole 10 minutes. You're lucky.

[15:18] Great. Good evening, Council. Not a mayor member of the Council on Doug Wagner.

[15:24] I'm the deputy director of Capitol Public Works.

[15:27] Capitol Project, sorry, I still get used to it.

[15:31] Here this evening to talk to you about the 208, 6-year capital improvement program.

[15:37] As councils of where every year we update the capital improvements plan to 6-year program,

[15:43] we are currently in the process of reviewing and preparing the 208-2033CIP.

[15:51] When adding projects into CIP, new projects can be requested by all departments, they can

[15:57] to be requested to be added by Council and by the Town Manager's Department, projects.

[16:04] Once projects are decided to potentially be moved into the CIP, they're prioritized

[16:11] with based on cost and potential benefit by the Town Manager and the Office of Finance.

[16:17] There is no study money in operating budget.

[16:21] I'll explain that a little bit later.

[16:23] I'll explain that more a little bit later.

[16:26] If projects are removed forward, projects can

[16:29] not be programmed in the CIP, until there is funding

[16:32] and staffing capacity available.

[16:35] In 2028 to 233, we're anticipating limited funding.

[16:41] So to date, we had seven projects requested to be added,

[16:45] only four are potentially being added.

[16:48] Those are two airport projects, which have DOAV funding.

[16:51] And then T-words projects which have VDOT smart scale funding.

[16:55] I'll also mention that there are seven projects coming out of the CIP.

[17:00] Mostly because they're completed.

[17:02] B projects like the Lawson Road, the Destrian Crossing.

[17:06] Pickleball courts will be done.

[17:08] Fencing for the airport also completes.

[17:11] So the seven projects will come out of the CIP.

[17:16] Many projects in 2027 were deferred to later years.

[17:20] It was where the town shop expansion, the Balsh library rehab, tennis courts, and fence replacement at Idley, locker room and pool renovations also at Idley,

[17:32] Battlefield Parkway Safety Improvements, the Conductance Circle, Turnling, and Trail, Fort Evans Road, and Plaza Street, drainage channel, and the airport parking lot.

[17:43] I mentioned I would talk about future projects a little bit later.

[17:46] There are future projects in all of our CIPs.

[17:49] They are potential future projects which have no study, no study has been done on them,

[17:55] so they don't have a real scope, they don't have a budget and we move to priority future

[18:01] projects which have had a minimal study done.

[18:03] They do have a scope associated with them in potential costs and with study money and potential

[18:09] funding that the goal would be that projects from the priority list removed into the CIP

[18:14] as funding becomes available.

[18:17] Again, the outlook for the 2020 ACIP, very limited project increases any increases.

[18:24] We have to offset by shifting other capital projects, schedules and scopes, fewer new

[18:30] projects, if any, without outside funding, as I mentioned before, projects that are potentially

[18:36] and moving forward, I'll have outside funding.

[18:39] We could also move projects forward if cash funded

[18:41] with prior data center computer equipment task.

[18:45] Equipment tax revenue is used,

[18:48] or potential utility, stormwater utility is implemented,

[18:53] which would take pressure off of the general fund

[18:55] and then external funding sources identified

[18:57] such as V.F.A.A.D.O.A.V.

[19:02] In the fiscal year 28 plan, we have approximately 62 million

[19:05] available for multiple government projects.

[19:09] These are, we're starting design of the North Street

[19:12] Improvements, North Street Improvements is all funded by NVTA

[19:15] 30%.

[19:16] Construction funding for the Traffic Signal at Sickland

[19:19] and Gateway, which has VDOT revenue sharing funding,

[19:23] and then the Air Traffic Control Tower and Parallel Taxi

[19:25] Way, which is almost entirely funded by FAA and DOAV.

[19:30] For utilities, there's 18 million for utilities projects,

[19:33] which includes automated meter reading technology and hog back tank recoding.

[19:41] This year, a capital project staff, each staff member has approximately seven projects.

[19:46] A normal workload for where we would anticipate would be three or five.

[19:49] So we are definitely busy, you can tell based on 25, we're getting a little bit busier.

[19:55] We have used staff augmentation this past year to help move projects forward.

[19:58] and with

[20:00] That all answer any questions.

[20:01] Before we begin the questions, I just got a text that sounds the webcast doesn't have any sound.

[20:11] Anybody having questions?

[20:13] I'll let Mr. Cummings first.

[20:15] It's some out of mayor.

[20:16] We did address the sound issue on the webcast.

[20:19] We did.

[20:20] Okay, thank you.

[20:23] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[20:25] When we talk about the future CIP, would you say the pressure points are funding

[20:33] related or staff capacity related, which is greater right now a little bit of both with staff

[20:41] augmentation we've been able to move projects forward which is quite a bit but that's

[20:45] more expensive.

[20:46] If we were to take data center revenue and put it into the CIP, it would help but it wouldn't

[20:53] help because we're not hiring staff with that those funds.

[20:57] It would provide more money for staff augmentation.

[20:59] we do have all of our all-call engineers have staff augmentation built into their contract,

[21:06] so it could help to move projects forward. But yes, ultimately hiring or staff would be a big benefit.

[21:14] And then if we were you know, I know you mentioned there's no money currently in the CIP for studies,

[21:22] and so to in order to get on the CIP you have to have that study.

[21:26] So, you know, the mayor and I met with a, with a, with a property owner talking about trying to build another parking garage in the downtown area.

[21:34] And if, and obviously that needs to come, if that project would ever come to fruition, there's a lot of steps to get there.

[21:40] But, but we would still need to have money in the CIP.

[21:44] So, is the process, if we were to try to begin that since it's six year plus process,

[21:51] for the council to fund the study of that first, and then, and then it would have to get into the CIP, or could you do both?

[21:59] If we have the money, could you run both simultaneously?

[22:02] Right now, we're in the process of updating the CIP, we could absolutely add it to the CIP, but the first step would be doing a study to get a budget and a scope.

[22:12] So, would you say if we, if the will of the council was to move forward on something like that,

[22:19] we would, would we be able to fund the study and put it in the year six of the CIP

[22:28] or would we need to have the study done first?

[22:33] Without a budget, it'd be hard to add it in the CIP.

[22:37] We could, we could take a shot at it, but we really need to have the study done before.

[22:42] I appreciate that it's kind of like my son's Christmas list, you know.

[22:46] Thank you.

[22:49] Thanks in the realm of unintended consequences now that we have seen the reality of the

[22:56] Lawson Road Project in the last storm.

[23:01] Is that kind of maintenance built in to our CIP or some other budget that we know now that we're going to have to deal with.

[23:09] the maintenance for it, we are in the process of the stabilization will be done and complete

[23:17] so that the site will be stabilized before the contractor leaves.

[23:21] The upgraded maintenance for removing debris was in our CIP for future maintenance dollars.

[23:30] We were anticipating that we would probably, we would need to be doing that kind of maintenance

[23:35] long term.

[23:37] Some maintenance.

[23:38] I don't know that we were anticipating we were going to have that much to do.

[23:41] All right.

[23:41] Thank you.

[23:43] Thank you.

[23:45] And that's it.

[23:47] Thank you.

[23:48] And you made it in five minutes.

[23:50] Tried.

[23:52] All right.

[23:54] Next we have the zoning ordinance rewrite.

[23:57] Further discussion on the dive list.

[24:00] I know it's related to article three.

[24:15] All right.

[24:16] good evening Madam Mayor and members of Council.

[24:20] Tonight we continue our discussion on the zoning ordinance rewrite deep dive list.

[24:27] And recall that this is our second work session on the deep dive list.

[24:31] Last time on October 5th we talked primarily about those items Council had identified related

[24:38] to Article 2, zoning districts and dimensional standards and so tonight's discussion focuses

[24:45] on Article 3, which is uses, but again, remember that these are just the items that Council

[24:51] has identified for specific discussion, it's not the entirety of Article 3 tonight.

[24:57] So, previously...

[25:00] We heard from Mayor Burke, council member Cummings, Will, and Vice Mayor Seminojansson that they'd like to take a look at the permissibility of uses.

[25:09] And when I say that, what I'm talking about is really table 9-2 in your drafts, only when it's rewrite, which indicates whether or not uses require a administrative review, a minor special exception review or special exception review.

[25:24] There was also direction to revisit short-term residential rentals, and that was from Council

[25:31] Member Steinberg and Council Member Kukowski.

[25:33] So we'll talk a little bit about those use-specific standards for short-term residential rentals.

[25:39] And then the last general topic under Article 3 uses was data center use standards.

[25:45] And that was also from Council Member Kukowski and Council Member Steinberg.

[25:48] So, jumping into it, just a quick refresher on what we mean by the use table and permissibility

[25:56] of uses.

[25:58] Essentially, this is table 9-2 in the zoning organizations, one excerpt to show you what

[26:03] it looks like, but in this table you'll see their land uses are listed in rows and organized

[26:09] by use category and then the districts are across the top and then each column coming down

[26:17] at the intersection of a row and a column will see a letter there that indicates the permissibility

[26:22] of the use. Also, off to the right, your rightmost column is a link to use specific standards

[26:29] as needed or related to a particular use. And what are those letters mean? As a refresher,

[26:36] yet again, here's your key. So P means permitted use. That means the use is allowed without

[26:42] additional review provided it complies with all the relevant zoning regulations of course.

[26:48] L stands for limited use. This is a use that's allowed with specific conditions. So that

[26:53] indicates there is use specific standards that are codified that must be met and if they are met,

[26:59] the zoning administrator can't approve it. However, if the zoning administrator cannot approve it,

[27:04] then there is a process to proceed as a minor special exception before the council. This is a new

[27:09] that we've added in the rewrite that will hopefully help streamline the process.

[27:16] Minor special exception that's indicated with an M, that's reviewed and approved by Council only,

[27:21] so no planning commission recommendation on those uses.

[27:26] Obviously they need to adhere to the base zoning standards,

[27:29] but the Council has the ability to impose additional conditions as needed as part of the review,

[27:34] and there is a public hearing required.

[27:36] S stands for the full special exception, so like the minor special exception, public hearing

[27:41] required, may impose conditions, but these uses go before the Planning Commission for

[27:47] Review and Recommendation before they come to Council for Decision, and that if you see two

[27:52] dashes in that table, that means prohibited use, not allowed in this district.

[27:58] So a task to your packet tonight is a track changes version of the use table, and you'll

[28:05] see that we've marked it up so you can see in red where we might have added or changed text

[28:12] proposed for table 9-2.

[28:15] I just wanted to talk a little bit about the y behind some of these proposed changes.

[28:20] Number one is implementing that town plan, right?

[28:23] That's kind of the main objective of our zoning ordinance rewrite.

[28:27] So for example, your new town plan has policies supporting more housing options and that's

[28:34] implemented by allowing more housing types in certain zoning districts, so you're increasing

[28:38] potential for additional housing options, corresponds directly to the policy that's adopted.

[28:45] Another example is your town plan policy support tourism in the downtown, and so that can

[28:51] be implemented here by permitting hotel and bed and breakfast in other lodging uses in the downtown

[28:57] as permitted or limited uses, reviewed administratively rather than a special exception.

[29:02] So that's our examples of how the zoning is starting to carry forward some of those policy statements.

[29:08] And another tenant of the rewrite was to look at streamlining process.

[29:13] This was one of the items that you all put in your council endorse the project plan when we started a few years back.

[29:19] And an example of how we streamline process in the use table is if there's a particular use that was always getting approved.

[29:27] be a special exception, maybe with the same conditions of approval.

[29:31] We went back and looked at the record, and we went ahead and just codified those conditions

[29:35] and made it a limited use.

[29:38] So a perfect example is like a doggy daycare.

[29:40] There was quite a few of those rolling through the council.

[29:43] Wasn't much discussion.

[29:44] It was approved with the same conditions.

[29:46] So we went ahead and made it a limited use subject to codified standards rather than going

[29:51] through that additional process.

[29:53] Okay, so, again, that markup version of section 9-2, the use tables is included.

[30:00] As the attachment to, and for these slides, what I've done is I've grabbed excerpts from those sections

[30:07] that the council wanted to talk about, and then we can always, matter, may or go to an open discussion

[30:13] as well once we get through these hot topics.

[30:17] All right. So, the first topic, council member Cummings would like to talk about was Flex and Warehouse.

[30:24] And so a little bit more on what you see on the screen.

[30:29] So the industrial use category is what we're talking about.

[30:34] And then within the industrial use category,

[30:37] you see a couple of different rows here,

[30:40] contractor, data center, flex,

[30:42] many warehouse facility, research and development

[30:44] and then all industrial uses other than listed.

[30:48] And remember that we went with a use category approach.

[30:51] This was deliberate.

[30:52] This is a paradigm shift.

[30:53] This is to create more flexibility and use regulation.

[30:57] Instead of a long list of every single potential land use term listed out,

[31:03] if it's caught under the all industrial uses,

[31:07] characteristics of that use category,

[31:10] then you would just go with that last row,

[31:12] the catch all there, all industrial uses other than listed.

[31:16] But in some instances, we've called out specific uses,

[31:19] either because we wanted to make them more or less permissible

[31:22] or change the permissibility and so we pulled those out of the general industrial category

[31:28] for example, Flex shown here. So I can read the characteristics of the industrial use

[31:35] category if we need to revisit that but specifically Council Member Cummings wanted to look

[31:40] at Flex and Warehouse. So what the draft proposes is adding Flex use as a special exception

[31:47] and service commercial, and that is your regional serving commercial zoning districts, so that's a new addition, and then keeping it as a limited use in the industrial research park and the brand new innovation center zoning district. And there are some use standards that come with that as well.

[32:10] for many warehouse facility that proposal is to eliminate those from a service commercial

[32:17] because those are really more regional serving retail parks.

[32:22] But then make the process a little more streamlined in your industrial research park.

[32:27] So to take that from a special exception to a limited use and then leave it as an S and I see.

[32:33] And you don't see warehouse specifically on this list because it's captured under that all

[32:38] industrial uses other than listed catch also if it was a warehouse as a principle use it

[32:44] would be special exception in IR special exception in IC and with that I can pause and we

[32:51] can talk about those uses. With with these changes there is a limit to the amount of public input

[32:58] in my correct. So the L is a administrative approval so there would be no public hearing associated

[33:07] with those. But if it's say a black L showing on the screen, that means that's how we're already

[33:13] doing it, that it pretty much already had a administrative review with some specific conditions

[33:19] that were needed. So the change I'm showing on the screen would go from an S2 and L for many

[33:26] warehouse facility in IAR. So that would yes be eliminating that public hearing component,

[33:31] and that example.

[33:36] All right, that's one of my pet feeds.

[33:41] I believe that the public should have some input

[33:43] into these things.

[33:44] And so it concerns me that so many, as I've reviewed this,

[33:48] it seemed like there were so many that were being cut out.

[33:51] The public was being cut out.

[33:55] But I appreciate the information.

[33:57] Just a little bit of a question.

[33:59] Thank you.

[34:01] So I appreciate you highlighting and including the flex in the commercial suburban.

[34:08] I think is what it's.

[34:09] I'm sorry.

[34:10] That's all I should say.

[34:11] Oh, you're right.

[34:11] I want to make sure I had a right.

[34:12] Marshall suburban because in the definition of flex it does mention it as as not only in industrial

[34:19] use, but also a commercial use.

[34:21] And so my question is kind of a process question.

[34:25] If I am a landowner look in the IR or the IC, the Innovation Center, how will I know what

[34:37] limited uses are available?

[34:39] Is it just clicking on this, use specific standard?

[34:43] Yeah, let me talk a little over to the actual ordinance we can walk through that together.

[34:52] Yeah, please.

[34:52] Thank you.

[34:57] Okay.

[34:58] Got it.

[34:58] Alright.

[35:00] Okay, so in this instance, let's go to, let's see the table here under uses. We'll go to Article 3, oops.

[35:12] Okay, and we'll go to Division 9, and we'll go to 9, too. And so we'll scroll down to where we were. Give me one moment.

[35:26] Okay, there we go. So now we are in the industrial use category. And you see the SLL. So first of all, you might be wondering, well, what do you mean by flex?

[35:35] So you could hover over this definition there.

[35:39] And it's a cohesive development comprised

[35:41] of one or more flexible space buildings

[35:42] with a compatible mixture of light and industrial facilities

[35:45] and other principal accessory commercial office

[35:47] and our civic institutional uses.

[35:50] So quite a bit of flexibility in that definition.

[35:55] And then if you met that definition,

[35:59] then essentially it's a limited use in these different districts

[36:03] in the IR and the IC.

[36:06] If you wanted a little bit more additional information about what do you mean by the industrial

[36:10] use category altogether, you click on that and you can see that the characteristics clearly

[36:15] defined its uses engaged and research manufacturing and simply processing, et cetera, et cetera,

[36:21] factory production.

[36:22] And it shows some examples of primary uses, then also lists accessory uses in that category.

[36:31] In my correct and saying in the I.C. The innovation center districts, civic facilities are not permitted.

[36:43] All right, let's take a look. I see civic uses.

[36:53] There we go.

[36:57] So in terms of civic uses, you've got library, permitted, all community services, uses other than listed,

[37:09] special exception, and then you've got educational facility, government facility, so there

[37:17] aren't quite a few specific uses that are allowed in the I see. And then what in the I see,

[37:24] what about warehouse or mini warehouse? Okay, let me just hop back there.

[37:35] Go. I see mini warehouse

[37:38] is a special exception and then warehouse would go under that umbrella term of all industrial

[37:44] uses other than listed so it's a special exception.

[37:49] And so typically my understanding of flex when they're developed, similar to Alex St.

[37:55] John's was developed off of the sickle and they build these properties and they build

[38:00] the buildings and they don't have the tenants yet.

[38:03] They don't know who's going to fill.

[38:06] Are we going to be requiring under the news, owning ordinance, those St. John's properties

[38:11] for instance to come in with every tenant they're trying to sign a lease with to get a special

[38:18] exception for that use?

[38:21] I'll give you my answer but then I'll defer to the person over here that'll be interpreting

[38:25] the code.

[38:28] If St. John's wanted to propose a mini warehouse facility as the principal use public storage

[38:35] self-storage, and that's the proposal, it's a special exception, but if it's a flex building,

[38:42] meaning it could be carved up into different tenant spaces, then it's a limited use.

[38:47] So the difference becomes what's the principle versus what is within those buildings,

[38:54] but go ahead Mr. Watkins. You nailed it. I don't really have anything to add other than the

[39:00] change in non-residential tendency would be monitored with zoning permits, but

[39:04] now additional not just late of application.

[39:08] I appreciate it.

[39:09] That's all the questions I have.

[39:11] Sure.

[39:12] There are two seminar, Johnson.

[39:15] Thank you for your presentation.

[39:16] I do have one question.

[39:18] The IR and the IC, could you give us some examples

[39:22] of areas around these burg that we would see that

[39:26] that flex and many warehouse and one other

[39:32] category I can't remember now,

[39:33] but would possibly show up.

[39:36] Sure.

[39:37] So I'm clicking on the interactive zoning map now.

[39:40] IR is this light purple.

[39:43] Do some circling here.

[39:45] This light purple color.

[39:49] And then I see as this light tan color.

[39:53] So if we zoom in a bit, you can see the IC, or sorry, the IC.

[40:00] A.R. is over here, down near the airport and Compass Creek. I.R. is over here by Village of Leedsburg. This is the one I was

[40:11] circling before. That's Compass Creek. And then you've got some additional industrial research park. Oops. Sorry.

[40:23] Over here, along Russell Branch Parkway, should really

[40:30] a mouse next time, sorry,

[40:36] up in this area as well, so that's industrial research park and then

[40:41] innovation center, erase those, that's that light tan color, so you're looking at, this is

[40:50] innovation center over here, so that's your leaseberg gateway or mentions property innovation

[40:55] center here across the way, which is formally called LEGATE, and then you've got a bunch of

[41:03] I don't feel parkway near the airport and over here.

[41:08] So what types of uses might you find in those districts?

[41:12] Let's take a look.

[41:20] One moment, sorry, let me just give you to this.

[41:25] OK,

[41:31] all right.

[41:32] So I see, and I are looking at the industrial use category,

[41:39] contractor, flex, mini warehouse, research development

[41:43] and production, and then other industrial uses,

[41:46] other than listed, some other examples, you know, commercial uses in those districts or things like adult

[41:54] datecare, child care center, craft beverage production, looks like in the IC, restaurants, office uses,

[42:04] outdoor entertainment.

[42:06] So quite a few different uses to kind of achieve that district of industrial research or an

[42:11] innovation center, it's meant to be mixed use, but heavy-related towards the employment generation

[42:17] with a little bit of housing. Excellent. Thank you so much.

[42:30] Yeah.

[42:30] Um, then I'll ask you after. Okay. All right. So that was our first discussion question.

[42:43] Did you want to go with our straw poll on these yellow ones like we did last time or?

[42:47] Yeah, I can do that if that would be helpful. Thank you.

[42:51] So, does the Council agree with the

[42:56] the

[42:57] the

[42:58] the

[43:00] the

[43:01] the

[43:03] the

[43:05] the CS, the IR, and I see designations.

[43:12] Are there four people that agree with that?

[43:17] All right.

[43:21] And the many warehouse facility.

[43:25] Four people with that one.

[43:27] They have that one.

[43:32] Yes, sir.

[43:34] Claire, fine.

[43:35] Excuse me.

[43:36] The many warehouse facility where you were

[43:39] equilating that to a storage facility is a correct storage.

[43:43] What else would qualify for that?

[43:48] That's pretty much it.

[43:48] Right, Mr. Walkins.

[43:50] Prime storage over there across from the airport.

[43:52] Where people just have their stuff and stored in individual lock.

[43:57] Special exception.

[43:58] I see limited use.

[44:00] I are.

[44:01] And you scrapped it from the commercial,

[44:04] or commercial suburban.

[44:06] All right. Thank you.

[44:08] All right.

[44:08] There are four people that are okay with what's been proposed for that.

[44:15] Okay, that passes this forward, and then all other industrial, all other uses other than listed, all industrial uses other than listed.

[44:26] Do we have four people for that one?

[44:31] No, that does not, that does not move forward.

[44:33] I don't, it was 33.

[44:37] So I guess if we could just get some direction on maybe where the majority would like us to go with that category.

[44:47] Does anybody have a suggestion on what they want?

[44:50] The three of you didn't vote for it, is there a reason

[44:52] that you, what are you looking for?

[44:57] Mr. Wilt?

[44:57] Yeah, just got a clarification.

[45:01] We were voting on the changes. And I heard last thing I heard was all industrial uses. I thought we were

[45:07] taking up the research development and production item.

[45:11] The reason I framed it this way, council member

[45:13] willad is because there was a request to look a little bit more at how we are permitting or not permitting

[45:22] flex and warehouse uses. So while it's not necessarily a change, warehouse would be in that all industrial

[45:30] uses other than listed, and will be a special exception on both counts in the industrial research

[45:36] park district and the Innovation Center district. So if the majority of the council wants to

[45:41] change that S to an L or an M or get rid of it or add it to more districts we'd love to hear

[45:46] that direction. Yeah, just in clarification. Which S are we talking about? Sure. Let me just use

[45:54] vote was, sorry about that. So here we go, this one here, talk about that one and this one.

[46:00] Okay, we're no proposed changes on. No proposed changes, correct?

[46:04] We skipped the research development production line, I don't know.

[46:06] We didn't do anything on that yet.

[46:08] Okay, that's what I thought we were going in order.

[46:12] I'm going down here at the questions. One, two, three at the bottom.

[46:15] Got it. Okay.

[46:18] So do we want to look at all industrial uses other than listed? Do we have four people in the

[46:25] I ask you a question on that one.

[46:27] Thank you.

[46:28] On the way, it's written currently with the special exceptions in the IR and the IC.

[46:35] Can you walk me through just quickly what's that's going to use to evaluate the standards for this special exception?

[46:43] Sure.

[46:45] All right.

[46:45] Let me get back to the rewrite.

[46:51] So there.

[46:58] So we would go, and we'd see it's a special exception, all industrial uses that then listed.

[47:04] Let's get down to that part of the table here.

[47:12] What about it?

[47:13] What about it?

[47:14] Thank you.

[47:18] Nope, I think it's up top.

[47:19] Industrial, where are you?

[47:23] There it is.

[47:26] And so if it's all industrial uses other than listed, that's the catch all.

[47:29] So we would go to this use category.

[47:30] And so somebody proposes a special exception and we look at the characteristics and so the administrator would look at what's in that gray box.

[47:41] Is this a use engaged in the research manufacturing assembly, processing, servicing or warehousing of chemicals, animal products, equipments and metals.

[47:50] The activities which are likely to have characteristics that discourage adjacency to residential uses factory production industrial cleaning industrial yards warehousing and distribution are located here.

[47:59] So, that's the first test.

[48:02] Does it meet the characteristic of the use category?

[48:05] And then, here's some examples of primary uses within this use category.

[48:09] So let's say it's a hypothetical warehouse that's being proposed.

[48:13] That looks pretty clear.

[48:15] And then, here's your second test, accessory uses.

[48:17] What else is going on in that proposal?

[48:21] Is there some office space?

[48:23] There's there, fueling facilities, outdoor storage, et cetera.

[48:26] That's all right, as well.

[48:27] But then you got to look at the special exception criteria, which is what the council is intended to use whenever they review special exceptions.

[48:36] And that's things like compatibility with the neighborhood impact on the neighborhood.

[48:42] Let's see what number is that special exception criteria.

[48:44] 28.5.

[48:46] So then you have to code of that, which is the kind of the general special exception criteria.

[48:53] 28.5.

[48:55] So we would look through all of these.

[49:01] Let's see the planning commission.

[49:04] I'll keep going, sorry.

[49:05] Here we go.

[49:11] Approval criteria.

[49:14] So the proposed use will not effortlessly affect the use of neighboring properties.

[49:17] Number one.

[49:18] Well, the use shall comply with the applicable zoning district regulations and applicable provisions of the doctor town plan.

[49:24] Number two.

[49:25] Number three, location size and height of building structures walls and fences.

[49:29] etc., etc., does not hinder or discourage the appropriate development in use of adjacent or nearby land,

[49:34] and then there's a criterion about pedestrian if you hit your traffic as well.

[49:40] So that's the main decision criteria for any special exception proposal.

[49:46] And the reason we go through that is because we want to make sure it's compatible with the neighborhood.

[49:50] It's not creating any unforeseen impacts.

[49:54] I appreciate that.

[49:55] from where I said, I understand the person.

[50:00] I suspect of the kind of catch all for everything, because we don't want to have a long list, but I do find it in my conversations with property owners and folks who work with property owners to be more, create more confusion.

[50:17] And so, that's why I keep my hand down for the all other uses.

[50:28] So on real terms, if we look in different parts of the town, we have storage facilities

[50:35] on trail view, cyclin road, and battlefield.

[50:43] And I would offer that, for example, in those three sites, in those two locations you probably

[50:49] would not want, and industrial use, as you described, where they were storing chemistry

[50:55] and so on because they're all in relatively close but well, except for trail view, the other

[51:00] tour within relatively close proximity, very close proximity to residential.

[51:06] So it doesn't seem unreasonable that you would want to be able to have a structure review

[51:13] of those some industrial uses as opposed to permitting anything within these two

[51:26] And I would be worried about that very same thing, so I think this is pretty straightforward in, and, you know, if I can follow it, that's a pretty good indication that it's okay, but, you know, I think that the special acceptance appropriate, we need to be able to have the public input, especially on things of this nature, so I have no problems with what we have in that place.

[51:50] So then I go back and ask do we have four hands that are a favor of the all industrial use other than listed

[51:57] Where it how it's set up right now. All right, that passes. Thank you. Thank you

[52:04] Did you Mr. Will wish to go back to research and development?

[52:11] Yes, that's still an open question. That was a proposed change there. I think was that resolved?

[52:16] I know sir. So the proposed change for research and development is to

[52:20] remove it as a special exception use in

[52:23] commercial suburban.

[52:29] So, do you need a vote on that one? Sure. Okay.

[52:32] Are there questions, since we're on that topic? Currently, research and development

[52:39] wise, I can only think of one building, but I'm sure there's others, and that would be

[52:43] off Tolbert Lane, I believe. Do you know of any others?

[52:49] We're about hope.

[52:57] What was the discussion on removing the special exception for that?

[53:02] I can get on board.

[53:04] I just want to understand.

[53:06] This was removed from the Planning Commission, correct?

[53:09] These edits here.

[53:10] These weren't the ones that we suggested.

[53:13] So what you see is mutual recommendation from staff and the Planning Commission.

[53:17] And the reason for removing it as a special exception use in suburban commercial is because that district is really regional serving retail.

[53:27] And so occupying that retail commercial space with research development production used in necessarily aligned with the new town plan policy.

[53:44] Okay.

[53:46] Not problem.

[53:46] Thank you.

[53:47] Okay, on this one, do you want to have anything on this one, are there four hands that would be willing to support the research and development and production community suburban, no commercial suburban, right?

[54:00] Being removed is especially exception and not permitted at all, are there four hands in favor of that?

[54:06] All right, that goes forward.

[54:08] Thank you.

[54:09] Thank you very much.

[54:10] All right, the next specific deep dive topic relative to permissibility of uses is lodging.

[54:18] And so consumer Steinberg, consumer Kukaski, wanted to look at lodging as a whole, but

[54:25] also short-term residential rentals, which will get to once we get through the use table.

[54:31] We'll take a little deeper dive at the use standards for those as well.

[54:34] So what I've done here is I've grabbed where these lodging uses are allowed for the residential

[54:42] districts. That's the top excerpt here and then the non-residential mixed use districts. That's

[54:49] the bottom one that you see on the screen there. So in terms of residential districts,

[54:55] Bed and breakfast is the only lodging use and it's allowed by special exception.

[55:00] And in residential suburban and residential historic, it's currently allowed in those districts as well. There is a change though to the number of rooms. We've increased that to proposed 15 max rooms in a bed and breakfast. In the non-residential mixed use, you see bed and breakfast is permitted in downtown. There's no change there from the existing zoning ordinance. But the other change that you see is to hotel.

[55:28] So, hotel is permitted in suburban commercial suburban, no change.

[55:34] Can I have two first of, are we talking about bed and breakfast first?

[55:37] Before we go into hotel.

[55:40] I don't know if anybody else has any questions on it.

[55:42] But I, in reading it, I had some real concerns.

[55:46] First off, the fact that we're increasing the room a lot to 15.

[55:51] And when I looked at other residential areas, most of them have them capped at five and I'm concerned that in the downtown we're going to start allowing a 15 room bed and breakfast that seems pretty excessive.

[56:08] And it concerns me because then you've got to start thinking about parking and traffic and things of that nature when you're adding 15 possibly two people at room you're now talking about 30 people in a bed and breakfast.

[56:19] But it also, I'm also concerned because it seems to remove the protections that we had in place before.

[56:28] You've gotten rid of no alterations to the exterior appearance of the building,

[56:33] or any accessory structure, or the premise shall be made within changes within the residential character of the property.

[56:40] No traffic shall be generated by such bed and breakfast and greater volumes than would normally be expected in residential neighborhood.

[56:46] No need for parking generated by the bed and breakfast shall be met with the use of off-street parking in a manner which protects the residential character of the area and the visual appearance.

[56:56] The bed and breakfast located at a commercial zoning district may only have weddings, receptions, and businesses as an excess acceler...

[57:06] What's the word?

[57:08] An additional use.

[57:11] Sorry about that.

[57:14] And so I feel like you've taken the protections away from the residents that live in the downtown commercial, not the commercial, but the residential areas, by not taking these into consideration.

[57:26] Why were these taken off and you're changing it from, you're making it permitted, excuse me.

[57:37] Is that correct?

[57:38] And the downtown is it was already permitted by right, but not at that 15 room number at your correct.

[57:48] So I can explain a little bit, but certainly open to changes as well if that's the way we want to go.

[57:57] The existing ordinance has bed and breakfast commercial in and hotel.

[58:02] And recall a few years back that this council changed the definition of commercial in,

[58:07] increased it from, what was it, 10 rooms Mr. Watkins, to 40.

[58:13] And so you lost that middle ground between, you know, bed and breakfast and hotel.

[58:21] And so we figured you don't really need that commercial in term anymore, because it's essentially functioning just like a hotel with 40 rooms.

[58:28] But maybe there's an opportunity to increase the capacity of bed and breakfast a bit to hit that sweet spot.

[58:35] But if the council feels like five rooms is where you'd like to be, staff is open to that.

[58:39] I can tell you that I had a neighborhood community meeting out there and knocking doors.

[58:48] There, people are very concerned about making it 15, because of the impact to the downtown.

[58:56] If you want to do it, they didn't have quite the issue elsewhere, but in the downtown you've got narrow streets.

[59:04] You've got different types of housing.

[59:07] I don't know that there was many houses that would have room for 15, but it's a real concern.

[59:14] And the fact that they're not going to have to, that you're taking away these particular items for 15 rooms is going to have a huge impact on the downtown.

[59:26] And again, in other areas maybe not so much, but the downtown being unique and small and historic, the 15 is very worrisome to individuals within that live in that area.

[59:41] and the concern that a lot of the residential,

[59:45] they're concerned that we're not preserving the residential aspect

[59:48] of the downtown.

[59:49] So we need to be aware of that.

[59:51] We need to be careful about that.

[59:53] And I just think 15 rows is way too big.

[59:56] I would be OK with having five.

[59:59] But the 15.

[1:00:00] And I said the people that I spoke to,

[1:00:06] so I got to be on record for saying 15, Mr. Kerkelsky. I mean, same five.

[1:00:13] Thank you, Mayor. I was going to approach this as well. So I guess, holistically approaching a question, understanding we took away commercial and so it's basically bed and breakfast and then anything over is just straight to hotel.

[1:00:26] So we're going one room to 15 I do have downtown is Max 50. I'm sorry. I started in a Ruppah hotel

[1:00:35] Met downtown is Max 50 rooms. Yes. Thank you. So looking for a middle ground to try and understand. So I agree that 15

[1:00:46] The reason I have an issue with 15 would be because I don't think there's any room or any homes in Leesburg because I think the idea

[1:00:55] with the bed and breakfast is that it's a home generally turned into a service. I don't know

[1:01:00] there may be some homes with 15 rooms, but I'm trying to think through possibly the carriage

[1:01:06] house, I don't even think that has 15 rooms. So I'm not sure, I'm not to say five is not the right answer,

[1:01:14] I think that might be maybe a tad low, but I'm thinking through if we're going to turn one of these

[1:01:25] But there certainly are some that maybe exist in that eight to ten area.

[1:01:30] So I guess this is more just a, as a conversation start.

[1:01:34] So that's my input is to look at it as if we're going,

[1:01:37] I don't want anybody building it and then calling it a B&B.

[1:01:40] I think that loses its charm and character of what a B&B really is.

[1:01:44] And in order to, if you're going to go to that 15 to maximize,

[1:01:47] you're probably going to have to build it.

[1:01:48] It's not going to come from a home that already exists here.

[1:01:51] So as a conversation starter, certainly lowering the 15 number, I think is important, but perhaps we can examine a little higher than five.

[1:02:04] You know, some localities, I have a list of different localities, and I forgot to write which one, I'm sorry, but one of them requires that the house has to be 50 years older.

[1:02:16] So you don't have to build things on Mr. Welp?

[1:02:19] Thanks, can I follow up on that line of questioning James the assumption that it's a

[1:02:28] residential house converted into a bed breakfast? Is that a requirement on the zoning code?

[1:02:34] Yes, yes, it is. Okay, and then so you don't simply

[1:02:43] build new construction and then call it a bed and breakfast.

[1:02:49] The ordinance doesn't distinguish new versus old construction.

[1:02:55] It's intended to be a home with a resident manager for which transient guests can stay.

[1:03:00] OK, so in that case, can you briefly, in the downtown, then discuss what are the functional

[1:03:06] distinctions between the bed and breakfast category and the hotel category?

[1:03:09] I'll

[1:03:12] pull it up, and you can...

[1:03:13] I think the number of rooms.

[1:03:15] But I think there's...

[1:03:16] There are major disabilities on site.

[1:03:19] Yeah, so the major distinction is again,

[1:03:21] it's a residence where you have a resident manager.

[1:03:24] So it could be that there's a out-of-a-town owner

[1:03:29] who has a resident manager who operates the facility.

[1:03:33] Okay, so in that distinction, so for example,

[1:03:35] you'll have a night manager who's station there,

[1:03:38] So you're saying it resident manager who has a living residence on site.

[1:03:42] Is that the distinction that must have a live on site living manager?

[1:03:46] So one of the living spaces has to be dedicated to a manager, correct?

[1:03:52] And not be overnight rental.

[1:03:54] Or the owner, one of the other owner, all right?

[1:03:56] Yeah, all right.

[1:03:59] Versus a hotel to commercially use.

[1:04:03] Mm-hmm.

[1:04:04] Thank you.

[1:04:05] You could say that faster than I could pull the definition of.

[1:04:08] Okay, and there are no other requirements, so a hotel, you know, a satisfactory restaurant.

[1:04:16] It's a, are there any functional, other functional requirements that distinguish the two?

[1:04:21] Others are not one.

[1:04:22] Sure, so I've got the definition pulled out.

[1:04:24] I know it's a little hard to read, but hotel is a building or a group of buildings, collection

[1:04:30] of guest rooms or suites with it without cooking facilities.

[1:04:32] They may also have additional services, conference meeting rooms, restaurants, bars, personal

[1:04:39] services, retail services, rec facilities.

[1:04:42] Ben breakfast, it's much less intense as Mr. Watkins was describing, overnight accommodations

[1:04:49] a morning meal, provided in a single family detached residence.

[1:04:54] There's a big distinction there.

[1:04:55] you've got to be a single-family detached residence that's owner or...

[1:05:00] Manager occupied. In the rooms cannot have cooking facilities. So, when you say so in the hotel, the only requirement was overnight accommodation. The rest of those were may have something but they're not requirements.

[1:05:14] Correct. So, overnight accommodation. The bed and breakfast is an overnight accommodation. But when you say in a single family residence.

[1:05:23] So, you go family detached residents?

[1:05:25] It's zone, then, as a residential property.

[1:05:29] Not necessarily no.

[1:05:30] Structure just has to resemble.

[1:05:33] Is this a single family structure?

[1:05:36] It has to have a permit as a single family dwelling.

[1:05:42] Okay, but it had in the past or it's current.

[1:05:46] Yeah, it's current uses currently permitted

[1:05:48] as a single family, then you can supplement

[1:05:51] that use with the B and B.

[1:05:56] All right, and so then.

[1:06:00] Back to the slide here. Back to the slide. Okay.

[1:06:11] You originally had that it was

[1:06:13] permitted, bed and breakfast, in the downtown.

[1:06:18] Yes, and that's up to 15 rooms.

[1:06:21] That's the change. The existing ordinance is

[1:06:25] 10.

[1:06:27] So 10 or 11, isn't it?

[1:06:29] We're going to double check what the existing ordinance is real quick.

[1:06:33] Okay, while you're doing that, the hotel,

[1:06:36] You had proposed a minor special exception of the downtown and you're proposing to change that to limited use.

[1:06:46] Correct.

[1:06:47] What's the reasoning behind that?

[1:06:50] As I mentioned earlier, implementing town plan policy.

[1:06:52] So there's policy that supports tourism in the downtown.

[1:06:56] And so this is an opportunity to streamline the process for what the town plan and the council is calling for in the downtown district.

[1:07:04] Okay, and that would be limited use subject to use standards.

[1:07:09] What are those?

[1:07:10] No more than 50 rooms primarily.

[1:07:13] Oh, if you're under 50 rooms, it's essentially permitted.

[1:07:16] Yeah, let's look at that together.

[1:07:17] See if there's any other use standards.

[1:07:19] And Mr. Watkins confirmed the existing ordinance

[1:07:21] is five rooms in a bed and breakfast.

[1:07:30] Okay, so I'm just going to click on these.

[1:07:32] Use standards here for bed and breakfast.

[1:07:34] Others hotel.

[1:07:36] So there's two standards in the DT district,

[1:07:38] no more than 50 rooms.

[1:07:39] And a minimum of 60% of the gross full area of the hotel you shall be for lodging.

[1:07:44] Thank you, James.

[1:07:45] A problem?

[1:07:47] I just am in a Johnson.

[1:07:50] I don't know if this will help, but in the current Virginia 30th have.1 they defined bed and breakfast

[1:07:55] as a maximum of 18 transient guests on any single day.

[1:08:00] So it does not list number of rooms but number of people.

[1:08:05] But bringing it down certainly I could see us making some change because 15 rooms and not sure I would consider a bed and breakfast ever.

[1:08:14] I might even be more rooms than most residents have.

[1:08:18] So, I would, I would be right with nine, but I'm not sure about I'm right with 15.

[1:08:25] I mean, thank you.

[1:08:26] I just, sorry to ask, maybe dumb question.

[1:08:30] So the current downtown that we're changing the zoning in our downtown, the zoning names, right?

[1:08:39] The map names that we're going from, we have downtown, which is kind of the commercial one, right?

[1:08:46] And then the, the R-H, the residential historic, is the homes kind of surrounding the B-1.

[1:08:52] Exactly right. It's currently called R-H-D, so we dropped the D.

[1:08:55] and so we're I want to just make sure I'm under state so to do a bed and breakfast in the

[1:09:02] RH is a special exit you have to come to the planning commission go through the council through the

[1:09:07] MN through the council the existing and also right and it's not and do we have a cap on rooms for that

[1:09:14] It's currently five five. Okay, all right, so we're not we didn't change that we only changed the downtown

[1:09:22] No, we changed bed and breakfast to 15 across the board

[1:09:26] I'm having so much fun.

[1:09:28] I would never stay to bed and breakfast, that's probably what.

[1:09:31] Yeah, I agree with what the mayor and the vice mayor and others have said,

[1:09:34] I think 15 is a lot for a bed and breakfast.

[1:09:39] I would support bringing that number down.

[1:09:41] I don't know what that number is.

[1:09:43] I mean, I don't think there's a house in the downtown that can have 15 rooms

[1:09:48] with a bed and breakfast, maybe one or two.

[1:09:50] So, yeah, I mean, I would support, you know, somewhere between five and eight,

[1:09:53] I guess is the two numbers I heard or five or nine.

[1:10:00] I will be bringing this up as a point of scale, so the colonial lid, which is in the business

[1:10:06] district downtown, do we know how many rooms they have?

[1:10:12] I think it's five, I don't know for a fact, I think it's a ballpark of five.

[1:10:18] So it's a substantial building in terms of size, typically it's bigger, I think, than your average

[1:10:24] house in any case and certainly wealth and walking distance of restaurants and parking and so on.

[1:10:30] And so if you took that operation and tripled it and then tried to put it into a house,

[1:10:37] I think you'd really be over taxing both the house and the neighborhood.

[1:10:41] So I have no problem leaving it at five,

[1:10:49] and most properties in the areas.

[1:10:53] And I do have, I'll get back to the hotel, but I'll wait till we get to the hotel.

[1:10:58] So, do we have four people that would be willing to compromise on it?

[1:11:04] There are a couple of us that would want five, a couple that would be okay with seven,

[1:11:08] a couple, one, eight, nine, whatever.

[1:11:11] How about if we come from, well, let's start with five.

[1:11:14] Are there, are there any four people that would be willing to do the five?

[1:11:20] Okay, six.

[1:11:24] How about if we compromise that seven, could you accept seven,

[1:11:32] seven, probably then put your hand up?

[1:11:36] Okay, wait a minute.

[1:11:38] Is your hand up?

[1:11:40] You're almost there.

[1:11:41] You're getting forward.

[1:11:42] No, we only got three.

[1:11:44] For seven.

[1:11:44] For about to get.

[1:11:49] Oh, I'm going to have.

[1:11:50] Yeah, so now we're at.

[1:11:56] That's a lot of people that's 16 people in a house.

[1:12:00] My name out of mayor.

[1:12:01] I actually have a couple of homes in mind.

[1:12:03] I'm not saying I'm, you know.

[1:12:04] But I do know a couple of homes that are eight bedroom,

[1:12:08] and they would make fantastic R&BVs,

[1:12:10] and I'd hate, or I'm sorry, I've been breakfast,

[1:12:13] and I'd hate to shutter the opportunity one day

[1:12:17] because we had an arbitrary option for the number of rooms,

[1:12:22] And I think that eight would be the sweet spot.

[1:12:25] If I could add one of those eight has to go to the owner or manager.

[1:12:28] That's a good point.

[1:12:29] There you go.

[1:12:30] Okay.

[1:12:31] Eight.

[1:12:31] Do we have four people that's only just a word question?

[1:12:36] If we said, if we said it five, but somebody came through and they're one and eight.

[1:12:41] Is there any process by which they could gain that or is it or close?

[1:12:47] Well, it's special exception already in our H and R S.

[1:12:50] So you could entertain, there was a process that we could achieve that if it was deemed

[1:12:58] doable.

[1:12:59] But for the downtown, it's permitted at eight, so they would have to ask for a zoning

[1:13:05] minor special exception of the council, a modified special entity.

[1:13:08] It may just make a point of order.

[1:13:10] Somebody can mention the colonial and only has five rooms.

[1:13:13] It actually is ten guest rooms.

[1:13:15] Just that way.

[1:13:16] I'm not, yeah, I'm just saying it.

[1:13:19] but hey. Okay. Got it.

[1:13:23] Do we got eight?

[1:13:24] Great. Thank you.

[1:13:25] Thank you.

[1:13:27] On this topic, super brief.

[1:13:29] So I'm looking at our staff packet and under bed and I just might be in the wrong section.

[1:13:36] But the bed and breakfast on this form only has permitted dt.

[1:13:42] But we are allowing bed and breakfast in other areas, correct?

[1:13:45] R S and R H yes something maybe I missed that in the staff report that's an

[1:13:52] actual suburban and residential what's the H historic yes

[1:14:02] well okay so up

[1:14:04] there it still shows permitted only for DT so we are is that wrong are you

[1:14:14] looking at the residential tables as well as the non-residential mixed use

[1:14:18] because it's separate.

[1:14:19] What you got on the screen is what we got.

[1:14:22] Okay, so that's in, so that's in table 921.

[1:14:26] So it's at the beginning of that section.

[1:14:28] You'll see an S next to R, S, and R, H.

[1:14:32] A lot to go through here along.

[1:14:35] While you're looking, can I ask a question?

[1:14:37] Yes, ma'am.

[1:14:38] So the things that I brought up about the traffic generation

[1:14:42] and the appearance of the building

[1:14:44] and the need for parking, all of that is gone.

[1:14:50] So we're not going to have that be a consideration at all.

[1:14:55] No, it's not gone.

[1:14:56] It was covered in other parts of the ordinance, off street parking.

[1:15:01] Requirements, special exception criteria that I read earlier, compatibility, etc. But if you'd like, we can go back and look at those standards and make sure that nothing has been removed and add them back.

[1:15:14] Well, I think that's important protections for the residents.

[1:15:16] No problem.

[1:15:22] Okay. Oh, but you don't have a question about it. Okay.

[1:15:29] Okay, I guess I got it. It's much as I'm going to get.

[1:15:31] And the hotel, before you begin, talk about the hotel.

[1:15:39] The first thing that strikes me about the hotel

[1:15:42] is we just made bed and breakfast, which are eight rooms.

[1:15:50] We made them, especially exceptions, but in the hotels,

[1:15:54] we're making it permitted and limited use.

[1:15:57] Those are much bigger buildings, which will much bigger requirements and much bigger implications.

[1:16:04] And we're going to do it by permit.

[1:16:07] We're going to permit them to do that without any public input.

[1:16:13] Not exactly.

[1:16:15] So, bed and breakfast is only a special exception in those residential zoning districts.

[1:16:20] Ben and breakfast is permitted by right downtown.

[1:16:24] So in the non-residential districts and mixed use districts,

[1:16:29] hotel is also permitted or limited.

[1:16:32] So it's the same treatment in that category of districts.

[1:16:36] hotels are not allowed in residential districts at all.

[1:16:40] Okay,

[1:16:42] I still don't have all these old things.

[1:16:45] So hotel is in commercial suburban.

[1:16:49] So hotel is already allowed by right in the equivalent of the commercial suburban, which is what we call it now, Mr.

[1:16:59] Why I can see are the old zoning ordinance for CS?

[1:17:03] No, it helps.

[1:17:04] Our B3.

[1:17:07] And then it used to be a minor special exception in the Industrial Research District.

[1:17:13] We took that out, again, to get doesn't really align with the town plan for that type of district.

[1:17:19] but yes, it used to be a minor special exception in downtown or B1. Remember, MU and I see

[1:17:26] are new districts. So it used to be like, oh, one and B4 basically. Right. And we made it

[1:17:33] permitted and limited based on that town plan policy based on the direction that your comprehensive

[1:17:40] The document gives us which is a tracked and support tourism and lodging downtown.

[1:17:48] Yeah, but that's nice to attract tourism and lodging downtown, but we also want to make sure

[1:17:52] we're taking care of the residents that live here now.

[1:17:54] I just had M-U, this M-U is basically,

[1:18:02] excuse me.

[1:18:02] Excuse me.

[1:18:03] Excuse me.

[1:18:09] Is it where I live?

[1:18:13] Is that mixed juice?

[1:18:14] So if we're property, we've got that mixed juice,

[1:18:17] and then Village at Leesburg mixed juice,

[1:18:19] and then also the old Wal-Mart building

[1:18:22] in that road kind of paralleling the gateway or the bypass mixed use Shenandoah square.

[1:18:31] Again, you know, this is what the Commission and staff are proposing to try and implement

[1:18:35] that town plan.

[1:18:36] But if the council feels more comfortable leaving it at legislative review, we're open to

[1:18:41] it.

[1:18:42] I would.

[1:18:43] I think, you know, the mixed use has a potential to be significant.

[1:18:47] And I just don't think that having a building of 50 rooms with restaurants and other accessory parts of it are, I don't think it should be just simply permitted.

[1:19:00] I think it should be, you know, at the very minimum, a minor special exception,

[1:19:10] but, but I think there has to be more eyes on it than just to permit, you know, being a permitted use myself.

[1:19:17] But anyway, so, Mr. Cummings.

[1:19:22] Thank you.

[1:19:23] I hear you on the mixed use.

[1:19:24] But kind of the, in my understanding of the mixed use district,

[1:19:28] it's going to have commercial office.

[1:19:32] So I don't know if, I'm less concerned at the mixed use than the downtown.

[1:19:39] Well, very true.

[1:19:40] So, I mean, I would be, I would be up to talking about looking at that downtown

[1:19:45] versus the mixed-use. I think the mixed-use is a natural place for a hotel versus the downtown,

[1:19:50] which has only so many limited places to put another hotel.

[1:19:53] And I don't disagree with you, but I'm saying that the building itself is a large building.

[1:19:58] Like you said, it could be a multiple...

[1:20:01] And I'm concerned that we're not going to have much many eyes on it. And we have had, you know, we know that we need to have eyes on these big buildings without name anybody.

[1:20:12] And so, but I agree with Mr. Cummings, I'm also concerned about the downtown being

[1:20:22] a limited use, you know, our downtown is very special and very unique, and I've been fortunate enough to be able to travel around Virginia lately.

[1:20:36] And that's one of the things that many of the other localities really

[1:20:40] MV us because we do have the historic downtown that does, that we've

[1:20:45] preserved and that they have not.

[1:20:47] And so I don't want to be in a position where we're not taking care of the downtown.

[1:20:54] I wish.

[1:20:56] So anyway, I don't think there's a vote yet on the hotel.

[1:21:01] I just, I was trying to editorialize there.

[1:21:03] So if you wanted to continue with what you were doing it,

[1:21:10] see there's nobody over here with you, so it's right now

[1:21:12] I know I have to

[1:21:14] You usually carry hits

[1:21:15] Okay, yes, okay, so two parts here to this question then so I'll start with it maybe the easier one

[1:21:24] So I feel that the mixed use

[1:21:29] Zoning

[1:21:30] Districts but parcels are really like where the mixed use are there they're pretty spread out

[1:21:36] they're generally kind of smaller little tracks. I'm looking at the map here. And, and of course,

[1:21:43] fortunately for us, the mayor lives right next to one, so it gives us the opportunity to examine

[1:21:47] a little deeper. So my question would be, were there, would you say that maybe commercials of

[1:21:53] bourbon and mixed use have a lot of overlap and maybe that's one of the ones that I see shaking your head

[1:22:06] I guess what I'm getting at is when we're looking at these individual, this is difficult, obviously, you have a very complex, we have a very complex town here.

[1:22:20] And so when I see mixed use here, right next to residential and then right next to residential historic and then next to our new I see.

[1:22:31] I can understand that it, you know, it can create some maybe difficult situations like the mayor was alluding to.

[1:22:39] So my question would be, you know, would any of these parcels or mixed use, for instance, would they be up for reconsideration for a different zoning standard?

[1:22:52] And that was a perfect segue to the point I was about to make.

[1:22:56] Use the points.

[1:22:58] So everywhere you see mixed use is largely already resowned.

[1:23:03] So that means that entitlement, which was approved,

[1:23:06] supersedes what we're talking about here.

[1:23:08] And if they want to change to come into the new mixed use district,

[1:23:11] it's a full rezoning.

[1:23:13] And this council will get a chance to look at it and have the public process.

[1:23:18] But if there are already mixed use, and I know there's probably a million examples throughout

[1:23:23] this document, but in this case we're talking about hotel, hotel would be permitted

[1:23:28] on mixed use currently with this, there's no rezoning already in place.

[1:23:37] Well, this map is the rewritten map, correct, the interactive one that's on the website.

[1:23:43] Correct, but this map does not supersede a previous rezoning entitlement.

[1:23:48] Okay.

[1:23:48] With Prophors on it?

[1:23:50] Okay.

[1:23:51] All right.

[1:23:51] Well then that does help explain that a little bit.

[1:23:54] Okay.

[1:23:54] So second question really quick.

[1:23:56] I know you've gone through limited use.

[1:23:59] Can you give an example of when you're talking hotels and downtown limited use?

[1:24:05] What specifically would that mean?

[1:24:08] Sure.

[1:24:09] Just to get a better feel for,

[1:24:12] because if it's permanent,

[1:24:13] They can, as long as they meet their heights and they're all their stuff. They're good

[1:24:17] But limited means essentially that zoning ministry takes a look at it and says all the stuff needs a match up

[1:24:34] There's my hour

[1:24:37] Okay, hotel

[1:24:39] Limited use downtown. So the first thing the administrator would do it would be look at the definition of hotel

[1:24:46] Is it is it meet this test?

[1:24:48] is it have guest room, sweets, with or without cooking,

[1:24:52] logic for transient guests, may provide additional services.

[1:24:56] We talked about that earlier.

[1:24:58] And then the administrator...

[1:25:00] We look at the use specific standards.

[1:25:04] If it's in the downtown district, no more than 50 rooms. So I need to see a floor plan. I need to see that you're not exceeding 50 transient rooms. And then I also need to see to make sure that the gross floor area of the hotel 60% of it must be minimum used for lodging. So you're not creating a hotel and making 75% of it a bar or a restaurant. And that's it.

[1:25:29] So it meets these codified standards, it meets the definition of hotel, it can get approved

[1:25:34] administratively, and it cuts down on that process, streamlined things, which is what we

[1:25:39] were charged with doing in that council and doors project plan as well as in the town

[1:25:43] plan.

[1:25:44] If you can't out the public.

[1:25:46] In this particular instance, there is no public meeting, and we feel like the public was

[1:25:51] engaged in that policy document, but again, if the council would like to have minor special

[1:25:58] exception approval we're not going to stand on any time of rock for that is that there's

[1:26:04] no floor for the number of rooms for the hotel correct excuse me there's no floor for

[1:26:09] the number of hotel rooms I mean or minimum sorry oh no theoretically you could have I and

[1:26:17] sound silly but a three room hotel good yeah I would you make it a practice and I understand that's

[1:26:33] I got a couple of questions on this one then.

[1:26:39] Obviously, I don't like the fact that the public is not involved.

[1:26:43] You'll hear me say that more and more times.

[1:26:48] Does the 50 room hotel limit apply for establishment,

[1:26:53] for building, for parcel, for development?

[1:26:56] What about multiple locations that are under the same management?

[1:26:58] at the same reservation system.

[1:27:01] When you have one business putting everything

[1:27:02] under one, same umbrella at some point,

[1:27:05] it feels like we're, you know, are we still counting

[1:27:09] that 50 rooms?

[1:27:13] Give me the hard one.

[1:27:15] So it depends on the application when it comes in.

[1:27:18] We're gonna evaluate it based on the facts

[1:27:20] of that application.

[1:27:21] So there's no prohibition and crossing parcel lines

[1:27:24] in the draft ordinance.

[1:27:26] We don't monitor who's much,

[1:27:28] I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.

[1:27:29] That's fine.

[1:27:31] Sorry.

[1:27:31] Go ahead.

[1:27:31] You were talking.

[1:27:32] I didn't mean to interrupt you.

[1:27:34] We don't monitor the management coming to be because they're meeting the underlying

[1:27:37] use standards and not necessarily, um, advertisement or business license purposes.

[1:27:44] How do you, uh, but are you still required to stay within the 50 room, 50 room requirement?

[1:27:53] Absolutely.

[1:27:54] But we've got, you know, so you've got a hotel with 39 rooms and three restaurants, five hotel rooms next door, a condos,

[1:28:05] booking on the hotel sites, plus 20 rooms and number of condos on another location.

[1:28:15] We've gone way above the 50 and we're, it's okay.

[1:28:22] So each of those locations, if they're subject to one zoning permit, because we don't discriminate

[1:28:29] by parcel, then we air it in approving that, which we wouldn't have because it surpasses

[1:28:36] the 50 threshold.

[1:28:39] If it's less than that cumulatively, again, each property, if there were separate applications,

[1:28:44] each property is subject, each application is subject to the underlying use standards.

[1:28:51] The ordinance does not, the, the, the land use regulations does not monitor or require a certain qualification and the management of that facility.

[1:29:07] So

[1:29:09] I, I, obviously I have issues with this, but I will, I, I think it, we've got, we've got to requirement this is 50 rooms and, and I don't, I don't think that this is going to help us to maintain that it be 50 rooms.

[1:29:27] So that it won't extend beyond the 50 rooms with additional usage and sharing amenities kind of thing.

[1:29:38] So that's my concern.

[1:29:41] Anyone else have anything at this point?

[1:29:46] I guess we have to, we voted on the bed breakfast.

[1:29:50] Eight, remind me again.

[1:29:53] Hotel.

[1:29:54] What is the question on the hotel?

[1:29:56] So it sounds like the majority of the council would like to see.

[1:30:00] Oh, tell us a minor special exception in the downtown.

[1:30:02] What's there?

[1:30:03] Let's see if that's actually true.

[1:30:06] Are there four people that want to see hotels?

[1:30:09] Minor special exceptions in the downtown?

[1:30:12] Is that what you were saying?

[1:30:14] Yes. Got it.

[1:30:17] And then, how about the other district?

[1:30:19] So, we're proposing hotel become a permitted use in mixed use, M.U.

[1:30:25] and innovation center, I.C.

[1:30:27] Councillor O'Key with that?

[1:30:29] Yes.

[1:30:30] Councillor O'Key with that, yes.

[1:30:31] One more question.

[1:30:32] You mentioned, as one of the potential areas, the old Wal-Mart shopping center,

[1:30:40] Royal, that site there.

[1:30:44] If that came in, that has no proposal on it now, other than the individual businesses

[1:30:51] under there, plus the restaurant or whatever it was we approved and office building.

[1:30:55] while back. But there's no mixed use application for that site now. And if I understood what you said,

[1:31:04] if it comes in with a new application, they're going to have to seek, let me rephrase it.

[1:31:12] If that's an MU, then when they come in with an application, whatever they come in with,

[1:31:18] long as it meets the MU requirements, then they're okay. They're not okay. Because there's

[1:31:26] existing entitlement CDP. So they, they, they would. So there would be oversight. It's

[1:31:33] the point in a site like that. Correct. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Can I ask one follow to that? I'm

[1:31:41] so sorry. Yes. Your professional opinion don't have to look it up. Most of the, this, I'm

[1:31:47] to make statement. Most of the town probably has these

[1:31:51] profit previously profit or rezoning, so they're all, most of the

[1:31:56] properties we're talking about mixed use or anything is going to

[1:31:58] have to come in front of council.

[1:32:01] Yeah, I think staff shared a map a while ago, 75% of the town is

[1:32:05] encumbered by a profit of rezoning.

[1:32:10] Didn't let's go home now.

[1:32:14] Okay, the last question mayor was just, are we comfortable eliminating

[1:32:18] commercial in since we increased that to 40 anyways. It's kind of functioning like a hotel.

[1:32:26] Commercial facility for housing and feeding the transient guests and a building contained

[1:32:29] no more than 15 guest rooms. This is commercial. This was previous. Okay.

[1:32:40] I don't know. Do we end up

[1:32:42] limiting ourselves? That's at 40, 40 rooms.

[1:32:50] It's 40. This is the commercial end.

[1:32:58] I think we just, I think we increase the oversight on the downtown for hotels, I think we

[1:33:06] just eliminated to keep the zoning ordinance a little clearer.

[1:33:11] It helps us with administration as well.

[1:33:15] I was going to say something snarky, but I won't.

[1:33:18] All right, there are four people that are okay with limiting commercial in.

[1:33:24] Great, thank you.

[1:33:26] Just want to check on timing, would you like to proceed?

[1:33:28] I have to ask because we have, we've gone beyond the hour.

[1:33:33] There's some more.

[1:33:37] Actually, there's quite a bit more.

[1:33:39] Are we okay going in an additional hour or two?

[1:33:44] Okay.

[1:33:45] Okay.

[1:33:46] Thank you.

[1:33:50] All right.

[1:33:50] Places of assembly.

[1:33:52] Councilmember Willt wanted us to look a little bit more.

[1:33:55] Excuse me there.

[1:33:56] Yes, sir.

[1:33:56] Just a backup.

[1:33:57] We resolve that hotel question.

[1:34:00] Or is that?

[1:34:01] Which one?

[1:34:02] The one about the hotel category.

[1:34:05] In

[1:34:08] the bottom, the bottom chart.

[1:34:10] The proposed changes.

[1:34:14] We talked about downtown, we didn't talk about the IRME or I see, I believe, do we?

[1:34:18] We did not, is that something you would like to look at?

[1:34:27] We took it out of the IR, which is the research area, and we made it permitted in the mixed use in the IC.

[1:34:39] Yeah, that's the proposal.

[1:34:42] Yes, sir.

[1:34:43] I didn't air of council.

[1:34:46] Agreed with that.

[1:34:46] I have four people that are in favor of that, is every two on one.

[1:34:49] Yes.

[1:34:50] Are there four people that are in favor of that?

[1:34:53] Thank you.

[1:34:54] Thank you.

[1:34:56] Okay.

[1:34:57] Places of Assembly.

[1:34:58] So council number will ask.

[1:35:00] And the Council to look a little bit more at places where folks gather and congregate to ensure that we have the appropriate level of review and permissibility in the table.

[1:35:13] So what you see on the top table is the residential districts, places of worship or public assembly are special exceptions across the board at any residential district.

[1:35:24] So that doesn't sure plan and commission and council review.

[1:35:29] The bottom is your non-residential and mixed use table and places of worship are limited

[1:35:36] uses in commercial neighborhood, commercial suburban, downtown, innovation center, medical

[1:35:45] center, government center, special exception in mixed use district and removed in the industrial

[1:35:51] research park district. So those would need to meet the criteria in 10.3H as limited uses and I can navigate there just to illustrate what we're talking about.

[1:36:16] There we go.

[1:36:18] So 10.3H.

[1:36:20] These are the use standards they would have to meet in order to be reviewed and approved as limited use.

[1:36:27] So apply with applicable noise standards,

[1:36:30] have a traffic management plan, maximum number of seats

[1:36:34] and occupancy if it's in residential,

[1:36:37] or a commercial neighborhood district,

[1:36:39] no more than 1,500, if it's in mixed use

[1:36:42] and non-residential, no more than 5,500.

[1:36:45] If it's an industrial district,

[1:36:48] it has to be located in an office or industrial complex.

[1:36:52] It has to have the vehicular access,

[1:36:54] any accessory dorms must be located in a conjunction with or on the same or

[1:36:59] a continuous lot, accessory bank with facilities may be provided in an

[1:37:04] accessory education facilities must comply with all standards for schools. So

[1:37:09] a pretty significant list there again to mitigate impacts, keep things

[1:37:15] compatible. So staff comfortable with the proposal as is, which is to keep the

[1:37:23] place of worship use as you get to it.

[1:37:31] Special exception in the residential districts and a limited use that has to meet those standards

[1:37:36] I just read.

[1:37:37] In the majority of the non-residential mixed use districts with the exception of the mixed

[1:37:41] use district itself.

[1:37:45] Don't we have some issues with how's it's a foreshap going into the mixed use, is that why you have it as a special exception?

[1:38:01] Correct.

[1:38:04] The village of Leedsbury comes to mind in particular.

[1:38:07] All right.

[1:38:12] Okay.

[1:38:12] Anybody have any questions, Mr. Will?

[1:38:15] Thank you, James Wing, we spoke about this earlier.

[1:38:19] Our discussion wasn't limited to places of worship.

[1:38:22] It was about places of assembly, commercial private, anything.

[1:38:31] What happened to the rest of that discussion?

[1:38:33] This is an or so place of worship or public assembly.

[1:38:40] I see, okay, so it's just, okay, or I get.

[1:38:45] So, then the specific elements, because we were talking about a variety of places,

[1:38:51] conference centers, private schools, sports centers, or those all categorized

[1:38:58] under as places of assembly.

[1:39:00] Good question.

[1:39:01] Let's take a look at that.

[1:39:03] Use category.

[1:39:04] When the nature of the discussion was in places which are

[1:39:10] design for large groups of people that congregate, where there could be noise issues,

[1:39:18] amplified noise, a music, traffic, parking, congestion that at least go through some sort of

[1:39:27] public input process, which we admire special exception.

[1:39:33] The use category for a place of worship or

[1:39:36] public assembly is uses of a public nonprofit or charitable nature providing worship or assembly

[1:39:41] to the general public on a regular basis,

[1:39:43] club or lodge, place of assembly, place of worship,

[1:39:46] could also have accessory uses such as schools,

[1:39:50] offices, classrooms, recreational facilities, et cetera.

[1:39:55] So you're exactly right, sir.

[1:39:57] The crux of the question was, do we want to...

[1:40:00] Change this, which is proposed now as limited in those districts to a minor special exception to ensure some oversight.

[1:40:12] That was the just of my request that I think the public's input is valuable in cases like these.

[1:40:21] That's why I wanted these to go through a minor special tool to give that opportunity to the public.

[1:40:34] I have a question, a legal question about this, so are we, if we put a minor special exception

[1:40:46] on here, are we limiting, are we putting more of a burden on places of worship or public

[1:40:53] assembly where we're not putting as much burden on something else that we could get in trouble for.

[1:41:01] Would you like to answer that question?

[1:41:03] I would be happy to try.

[1:41:09] I don't know that it's that the status of

[1:41:16] a structure with a religious use from a land use perspective as any special protections.

[1:41:24] we are entitled to look at impacts, whether it's religious, whether it's secular, whether

[1:41:34] it's something else. From a use perspective, there are other types of protections

[1:41:40] that religious institutions get in terms of what can be said in other things, tax status,

[1:41:49] et cetera. But from a use perspective, which we're talking about tonight,

[1:41:57] So whatever your judgment is, in terms of what are the uses we're going to look at, what level

[1:42:03] of public review do you want, but you are legally entitled to assess the use, whether it's a religious or a secular use.

[1:42:13] Okay, impacts of use.

[1:42:14] So if we just for example, if we allowed movie theaters to come in, permit it in every, every district.

[1:42:22] would we be signalling out or could someone argue we're signalling out places of

[1:42:27] our ship?

[1:42:29] Someone could argue that there's inconsistency in your decision making but ultimately

[1:42:36] as long as your zoning characterization and the conditions you put on the

[1:42:42] use is based upon impacts, that's a permissible zoning.

[1:42:48] Thank you.

[1:42:55] So are there four people that would like to see the public places of worship or public assembly become minor special exceptions?

[1:43:07] Are there four people that would like that?

[1:43:11] Okay, that passes.

[1:43:13] Okay, if I could just confirm would you like to keep the special exception in MU or just make it in across the board?

[1:43:24] You wouldn't want to fight this up, Mr. Well, what was your intention?

[1:43:27] That was across the board.

[1:43:28] Awesome board. Okay. Thank you.

[1:43:32] All right.

[1:43:35] All right.

[1:43:37] The last specific topic that was identified

[1:43:40] comes from the vice mayor and that was a discussion about uses with drive-throughs.

[1:43:48] So, there's three types of uses with drive-throughs.

[1:43:51] going to circle them because this is a lot to look at here. I'm going to use blue. So you've

[1:43:57] got restaurant with drive through right there. Then the next one down we're going to

[1:44:04] go to green. You got restaurant without drive through and then you got a bank with drive

[1:44:11] through and then finally you've got pharmacy with drive through. And so what we've currently

[1:44:21] proposed is if it's a drive-through restaurant, it's a limited use in suburban commercial,

[1:44:30] not a special exception anymore, and it is no longer allowed in mixed use districts, and

[1:44:37] it is a special exception in innovation center. Of course, if it's without drive-through, that

[1:44:45] removes the primary thing that's creating that impact, so there is more permissibility

[1:44:50] with that one. Same holds true for bank with drive-through. It's added as a limited use in

[1:44:59] your commercial neighbor.

[1:45:00] Hudzoni District for call, that's a new district. It's been to serve the neighborhood. It's changed to a limited use in commercial suburban, remove, in mixed use and then a special exception in D.T. not a lot of the innovation center, but never was before. And then pharmacy with drive through minor special exception in the CN, limited in CS and limited in ICNMC.

[1:45:28] And so the justification for these changes is, you know, the intent of the mixed use zoning

[1:45:36] district is pedestrian oriented, walkable uses that activate that amenities driven core.

[1:45:45] And when you think about pedestrian oriented, walkable, active, a drive-through restaurant

[1:45:51] is not implementing that town plan vision.

[1:45:55] and that is why we've removed it from the next use district.

[1:46:00] So with that, we'd just like to check in with the council to see if you agree with

[1:46:06] how we have proposed the permissibility for these different uses with drivers.

[1:46:12] I have any questions at this point.

[1:46:14] I was going to ask about the MU, why you decided not to allow it there.

[1:46:25] I was so surprised that the bank, the bank would drive through facility is not allowed in the MU.

[1:46:34] Again, if that's auto-dominated use, basically, if you got the drive through, you got the

[1:46:39] three stacking lanes, you've got queuing, you've got cars idling, then it does not implement

[1:46:44] that town plan policy for walkable mixed use center.

[1:46:50] And we felt there's adequate area throughout the town and your commercial suburban and

[1:46:56] other places that it is allowed.

[1:46:58] than

[1:47:05] the pharmacy, it's not allowed in a number of districts.

[1:47:10] Yeah, no change is there, that's pretty much carrying forward what you have, currently.

[1:47:15] And Mr. Cummings?

[1:47:17] Just had a question on the downtown district.

[1:47:22] I want to make sure the bank with drive-through is permitted with special exception in the downtown.

[1:47:30] Am I reading that correctly?

[1:47:32] Correct.

[1:47:32] That's a carryover from the existing ordinance.

[1:47:37] I don't know if there's others on Council

[1:47:39] that would support eliminating that as a altogether

[1:47:43] in the downtown district.

[1:47:45] One, I don't think banks would thrive through this or here

[1:47:48] for the future.

[1:47:50] But also I think in our downtown, we have limited,

[1:47:54] just like what you mentioned in the mixed use,

[1:47:55] we want to make the downtown a focus on walkability,

[1:47:58] focus on pedestrian, eliminating that.

[1:48:02] that you even even with special exception for banks in the downtown I would I would hope to

[1:48:08] gardener some support for them. Well except except there are some banks in the downtown that

[1:48:16] it's not a it's a walk-up ATM so that wouldn't count as a drive drive through facility.

[1:48:26] No. Okay. I don't have a problem with that.

[1:48:37] Do we have four people that would support

[1:48:39] Mr. Cummings idea of, what do you ask him to do?

[1:48:45] So just eliminate the use of the back to drive through in the downstairs.

[1:48:48] Okay, eliminate it all together.

[1:48:50] Okay, to we have four people that would be willing to do that.

[1:48:53] All right,

[1:48:59] and you go to else have any issues with the rest of it.

[1:49:03] Do you, so you're okay on that on the rest of it?

[1:49:08] Yeah, okay.

[1:49:12] And you have a question?

[1:49:14] You just have one quick question, the Apple Federal Credit Union that's going out on market.

[1:49:20] That's not downtown, right?

[1:49:29] Excellent work.

[1:49:30] We made it through the use tables and the...

[1:49:33] Not done yet.

[1:49:33] The specific topics that were identified, but at this time we'd like to check in, are there

[1:49:38] any other areas you'd like to look at and I'm going to transition over to the attachment

[1:49:42] so I can scroll around in here real quick.

[1:49:46] Yeah, there is a couple that I'd like to talk about.

[1:49:49] And one of the first ones is, and this may seem inconsequential, but to a number of people it is not.

[1:50:00] Only on Mount Zion, there's two cemeteries.

[1:50:08] We

[1:50:15] have two cemeteries. One is the Mount Zion cemeterie that is predominantly white and the other one is the Mount Zion cemeterie that's predominantly black.

[1:50:39] So, one of them is known medical MC, and it's only one thousands of a percent covered by that.

[1:50:51] It's next to the hospital, and the other ones are there in the historic residential district.

[1:51:01] And my concern is the difference, does it, what's the implication of having the difference

[1:51:12] when they're both cemeteries, and they're both right across close to each other?

[1:51:18] And can we, I don't want to see the hospital come and dig up the cemetery and move everybody.

[1:51:25] We want to protect the black cemeteries, much as we want to protect the white cemeterie.

[1:51:29] You can remember the issue that we have with the right off of work street, the three houses that were built and the spillover.

[1:51:44] We relied on a lot of state code requirements for cemeteries to protect those grave sites.

[1:51:53] I think there were

[1:51:59] very small percentage of the loss that they actually found.

[1:52:07] It was hard to discern whether they were actually complete or partial, but we would rely mostly on those regulations to deal with removals of existing cemeteries.

[1:52:26] Maybe I'm trying to be overly sensitive here, but it concerns me that, is it necessary

[1:52:35] that we have, I mean, since their, their cemeteries can't, they all have the same zoning.

[1:52:46] The first blush for the mapping was just looking at existing districts, and then slotting

[1:52:53] them into similar districts, you know, did we miss looking at those existing use of the property,

[1:52:59] maybe they would be existing or conforming uses or they would be existing conforming uses.

[1:53:07] So, they wouldn't be necessarily removed unless done so by the property owner.

[1:53:13] So, the zoning net wouldn't necessarily protect it other than identifying whether or not

[1:53:19] that was an acceptable use on the property.

[1:53:24] Do we need extra protections other than just the designated land use?

[1:53:27] I'm just pointing out that we have a black cemetery that has a different zoning than the other

[1:53:34] cemeteries, and they're right beside each other, and so that was pointed out to me as

[1:53:41] a concern.

[1:53:42] We can absolutely go back and look at the mapping for you, but it's not a problem, but it was

[1:53:46] not intentional.

[1:53:46] Okay, and okay, now into, there's a number of these that have already been taken care of, but on page 27 of you report to us.

[1:54:05] If you want one moment, just a track with you here.

[1:54:10] Okay.

[1:54:16] I've got 27 as the future dive list.

[1:54:22] All right.

[1:54:22] And it's halfway down.

[1:54:24] And it says modify the use table to maximize administrative handling of my minor manners.

[1:54:30] What constitutes minor?

[1:54:37] It's one of those big words to do.

[1:54:39] Modify the use table to maximize administrative handling of minor matters.

[1:54:42] So, this one came from the vice mayor.

[1:54:45] I think he wanted to just make sure we were looking at it as in a lens of where it makes sense to change things to the L or the P rather than the M or the S.

[1:54:58] Is that about right, vice mayor?

[1:55:01] Oh, no problem? Oh, hi, attention. So this was one of the comments from that email you sent to us, and that the general tone was, take a look at the use table to see if there's opportunity to streamline and create administrative versus legislative review. Yes, yes.

[1:55:18] We'll go back to minor. Is that a term within that?

[1:55:23] In this case, minor went administrative. So that might be the wrong word choice there.

[1:55:30] And the rest of the, we have,

[1:55:36] okay, so after this, the rest of my questions kind of are November 9th.

[1:55:41] So I'll hold them till November 9th.

[1:55:45] Okay, I mean December 9th.

[1:55:46] Is it November 9th?

[1:55:47] Yes, November 9th, yes.

[1:55:49] Yes.

[1:55:49] It's getting later.

[1:55:50] Okay, so I'll hold those.

[1:55:53] Since that isn't on the agenda for right now.

[1:55:56] And then you answer these questions.

[1:56:00] So I'm good at this point.

[1:56:02] So the only thing I want, the last thing that I would ask,

[1:56:06] is I'm looking for my paper that had it,

[1:56:09] is that the question I asked you before about the protections

[1:56:14] for the,

[1:56:17] not that I have a lot of papers here,

[1:56:20] for the downtown by the making the changes.

[1:56:23] For the B&B?

[1:56:25] Yeah, that those are somewhere else.

[1:56:28] and that those residences are protected very similar to what they were previously.

[1:56:34] We'll double check if they're not covered elsewhere.

[1:56:36] We'll add them back in.

[1:56:37] Thank you.

[1:56:39] Anyone else have anything?

[1:56:40] There's a few other topics for tonight.

[1:56:43] Okay.

[1:56:43] So, term residential rentals.

[1:56:45] Would you like to continue with that?

[1:56:48] Is that for tonight?

[1:56:52] I guess so.

[1:56:53] Okay.

[1:56:54] I mean, does everybody want to go keep going on?

[1:56:58] Okay, so Council Member Steinberg and Krukowski asked to take another look at short-term residential rentals.

[1:57:05] Recall that this use and the use standards were recently adopted by the Council,

[1:57:12] I believe it was back in about 2024 if my memory serves me correctly.

[1:57:17] And at that time, the commission recommended some things and not all of those items stayed.

[1:57:27] and we've added them back into the draft.

[1:57:29] So I'll go over what that means.

[1:57:33] So the draft requires a registration of the short-term

[1:57:37] residential rentals per town code.

[1:57:39] That's a change from your existing.

[1:57:41] The existing says you just have to get a home occupation permit.

[1:57:44] So we've tightened that up and moved to the town code

[1:57:47] and keeping with state code.

[1:57:49] So our town attorney's office felt like that was

[1:57:51] a better foolproof plan for handling the registration

[1:57:54] of these things.

[1:57:55] Give that to me again. Sure. We're going to rely on the state to do it. Yeah, so the existing ordinance, the registration was the vehicle was a home occupation permit

[1:58:06] which was being, you know, policed by us in the community development department.

[1:58:11] And then there was some new state code that came out around these short term residential rentals, and especially on the registration piece.

[1:58:19] And so for more efficient government administration, our town attorney office thought,

[1:58:24] Let's put the registration requirement in the town code, it doesn't really have that much to do with the zoning, it's more about the business licensing and just refer over to that.

[1:58:33] And so that's what we've done in this draft.

[1:58:35] Will the state collect the money?

[1:58:37] There's the state.

[1:58:37] No, the local authority still collects the TOT.

[1:58:43] Okay.

[1:58:44] There's a handful of operational occupancy parking and appearance standards that were in that original

[1:58:52] 2024,

[1:58:57] sorry, 2022 ordinance that you all adopted and those remained.

[1:59:02] The one thing that was added back in was the residency requirement.

[1:59:08] Previously in 2022 staff and commission were recommending a residency requirement.

[1:59:14] The council at that time voted not included but we still feel like that is a very important

[1:59:20] regulation so we've added it back in here and essentially what that is is it

[1:59:25] requires the operator of the short-term residential rental to reside

[1:59:30] at that location for a minimum of 185 days out of the year.

[1:59:36] And why do we feel like that is important?

[1:59:38] We feel like that helps with the pride of ownership and ensures consistent

[1:59:44] upkeep of the short-term residential rental in the neighborhood.

[1:59:47] So that's added back in in the draft.

[1:59:52] The other item that the Planning Commission added is that the short-term residential rental

[2:00:00] The property can only be used as a short term rental for a max of 90 days per year. So that's new.

[2:00:09] All right. Now there's no limitation. And that was more of a commission recommendation. That was included.

[2:00:16] And then the other aspects that remain the same from what's existing is one short term rental per parcel, maximum of six lodgers for less than 30 days.

[2:00:28] and it remained a limited accessory residential use.

[2:00:33] It is a limited use, which is administrative

[2:00:37] in all residential districts.

[2:00:39] The mixed use district, the downtown district,

[2:00:41] and most of your crescent district sub districts.

[2:00:47] I don't see here.

[2:00:49] Is there any way that we could control the amount,

[2:00:55] the number of short-term residential rentals in a particular neighborhood or area?

[2:01:04] That. We don't have, and I'm not sure we can. Glad to do that. There's no specific line

[2:01:10] which to rely on other than how do we police first come first? I don't know if you want to add

[2:01:16] anything else, Mr. Attorney, but that was the general just. If I may have had a Mary, that's really

[2:01:23] been a challenge, as we've talked through this.

[2:01:28] I think the phrase that Mike uses is the appropriate one.

[2:01:36] There's an inequity to sort of a first come first served.

[2:01:42] When you have a cap like that, what we're regulating is use and impact.

[2:01:50] If the use is the use,

[2:01:54] then within that zone, it should be

[2:01:57] allowed. That's kind of where we're at. There's not. I'm unfamiliar with anybody who any

[2:02:04] jurisdiction with Virginia who's been successful in finding a new mayor cap like that.

[2:02:11] It seems like the equity should go towards the people that live there. At that point,

[2:02:15] the impact of the neighborhood can be pretty dramatic when you have 15 houses and nine of them

[2:02:21] are Airbnb's. It seems like a shame that we can't do something to help

[2:02:28] that aspect of it. Mr. Kerkowski.

[2:02:34] Thank you, ma'am. So my question is in relation to, there seems to be a delta between these

[2:02:43] days. Obviously, it doesn't add up to 365.

[2:02:49] So I'm wondering if it was just the left hand

[2:02:51] wasn't talking the right hand. So we have minimum of 185 days a year, the owner of the residents

[2:02:58] must live there. And we have no way to verify they live there, really, right?

[2:03:06] No, we do. We have it as part of our criteria. Like the properties inspected to say that they're

[2:03:23] home, Florida, and they own a home here.

[2:03:26] How do you determine that they are living here and not in Florida during the 185 days?

[2:03:33] We'd call up that section of the ordinance, we can look together.

[2:03:39] I know it seems like the numbers aren't adding up, but that's purposeful, they're not meant

[2:03:42] to.

[2:03:43] Okay.

[2:03:44] 185 is just about the operator has to reside there for more than half the year, basically.

[2:03:51] The other two numbers are more about the renters.

[2:03:56] You can only use your property for 90 days total out of the year as a short term rental.

[2:04:02] That was a commission add on and then what defines a short term rental is that you're not renting it for longer than 30 days.

[2:04:11] No more than a month basically.

[2:04:13] But let me just go to that section of the code to answer your question about how do we verify the residency requirement.

[2:04:20] So,

[2:04:36] no, we're all these things are by now, but here it is.

[2:04:40] Okay, accessory residential.

[2:04:40] Use your short term residence rental.

[2:04:42] You click on this 112G.

[2:04:44] That takes you to the use standard.

[2:04:51] So zoning permit required.

[2:04:53] So they have to submit an application.

[2:04:56] And they have to submit evidence of compliance with or extension from the register.

[2:05:00] We talked about that earlier. And then the application for a certificate of registration has to have written consent of the property owner. And

[2:05:22] there you go. So for a, the operator must occupy the dwelling in which the short term residential rentals and accessory use for a minimum of 185 days out of the calendar year. The zoning administrator may request appropriate documentation to determine proof of residency.

[2:05:38] examples of appropriate documentation include driver's license with the property address utility bills or bank statements or tax returns.

[2:05:46] Okay. So what I'm kind of getting at is if we have 185-day requirement, but only a maximum of 90 days that you can rent why is it not just 275 days.

[2:06:00] is your residency requirement.

[2:06:04] That's a good question.

[2:06:06] The 90-day was added at the last discussion.

[2:06:10] That's kind of what I'm getting ahead.

[2:06:12] It kind of layered in the numbers just didn't match because of that.

[2:06:15] It wasn't that there's some Delta in there that I'm missing somewhere else.

[2:06:21] That's fine.

[2:06:23] Staff is okay without the 90-day requirement.

[2:06:26] Without the 90-day maximum.

[2:06:29] Correct.

[2:06:30] So no, like no matter essentially, whatever the difference is, 365 minus 185, 180 days, that's what staff is okay.

[2:06:40] Remember that you can have a short-term rental in your accessory dwelling.

[2:06:45] So I could be living in the main house and renting out my accessory dwelling at the same time.

[2:06:49] So the 185 doesn't necessarily constrain when you can use it as a short-term residential in all situations.

[2:06:58] Okay, so if somebody has an accessory dwelling, they are not kept by the 90 days under the new.

[2:07:06] Now, the 90 days is per parcel.

[2:07:09] Okay, so I

[2:07:13] want to make sure I'm clear.

[2:07:14] So this is accessory dwelling.

[2:07:15] When is there's a, use as an Airbnb is still kept at 90 days, or it is not.

[2:07:23] As of right now, the way it's proposed to the council, no dwelling may be used as a short-term residential rental

[2:07:29] for more than 90 total calendar days per year.

[2:07:34] So if someone builds an accessory dwelling

[2:07:37] for the purposes of an Airbnb and we pass this

[2:07:41] or the grandfather,

[2:07:45] if they have an existing permit today

[2:07:47] they're grandfathered, but after it's passed no.

[2:07:52] And on that topic, just the,

[2:07:55] so there's the, I think the planning commission

[2:07:56] had two different areas of concern.

[2:07:59] One was the residency requirement.

[2:08:01] The other was just the use and activity.

[2:08:03] The 90 days was specifically to the use of activity, not directly associated with the residency.

[2:08:10] And that's why there's a bucket.

[2:08:11] Two different numbers.

[2:08:12] They're not necessarily compatible.

[2:08:17] Yeah.

[2:08:18] I'll come back.

[2:08:21] Okay.

[2:08:21] So that I got a piggyback on this one.

[2:08:25] So I'm thinking short term rentals are Airbnb's.

[2:08:29] Correct.

[2:08:30] So someone lives in there for half a year.

[2:08:32] I guess, can they have, could they run it out while they're living here?

[2:08:36] Correct.

[2:08:36] If they run it out of room, two rooms, a basement, an accessory dwelling.

[2:08:44] And so limiting the 90 days, even though that's, I'm not sure what, I'm confused

[2:08:52] about the 90 days too.

[2:08:53] It doesn't, the 180 days, I can, I can understand, but I don't understand the 90 day

[2:08:59] next. This was something the commission wanted to just put an overall cap saying, hey,

[2:09:10] do dwelling can be used as one of these for more than 90 days period. So if you're using

[2:09:16] an accessory dwelling unit, it's not affordable housing. It's not direct. It's a rental.

[2:09:21] So it's nothing. It's no more different than you having somebody come in your house or stay

[2:09:26] with you for a period of time and pay you for it.

[2:09:31] So I don't have any problems with the 180 days myself.

[2:09:37] I wouldn't like to see it be an Airbnb for the entire year.

[2:09:42] That's one problem with that.

[2:09:44] Yeah, you're on the right path.

[2:09:45] That's what they were thinking as well.

[2:09:48] Mr. Steinberg.

[2:09:52] It's right for you.

[2:09:53] This conversation is fraught.

[2:09:54] First of all, anybody could have a primary resident.

[2:10:00] And use it as an Airbnb or some sort of sure say rental while they live there all year round. So are we saying, in that kind of a situation in theory, they're still limited to the 90 days?

[2:10:14] As it's currently drafted, sir. Yes? Okay.

[2:10:20] Now what if

[2:10:23] you have, you have,

[2:10:28] you're going to go away and you want someone to stay at your house because you have plants and pets.

[2:10:33] So, in effect, you are swapping residents for a period of time, maybe, could be a month or what have you.

[2:10:41] How would an arrangement like it, and you're not, there's no monetary exchange.

[2:10:46] You're just, they're just coming to say your house and you're going somewhere else.

[2:10:51] So, does that in any way fall under this?

[2:10:55] That's an entirely separate situation.

[2:10:58] No registration or anything like that.

[2:11:02] Are we actually going, is the state going to actually allow us to limit a situation like this

[2:11:09] to the 90 days that we're hoping for, first of all, that's the first question.

[2:11:15] Yes, we do feel that we're unable to draft this regulation.

[2:11:20] Okay, and given that we have asked our legislative packet through VML, they have asked the

[2:11:27] legislature and their legislative packet to eliminate what is section B of the registry

[2:11:36] forgiveness, so to speak. If they don't do that, then where are we going to be? I'm not saying

[2:11:45] we shouldn't do what we should, but we want to do and see what happens. I'm just wondering

[2:11:49] where we might be in the end.

[2:11:54] We don't know.

[2:11:54] where we are now?

[2:11:56] It's hard to speculate on whether...

[2:11:59] I mean, as it stands now, there is, you can be forgiven for the registry if you're

[2:12:05] of some sort of management agency and a less-than-state deems it in our interest to strip

[2:12:14] that out.

[2:12:16] It's somewhat limits us in terms of the registration altogether.

[2:12:20] Yes?

[2:12:21] I think that's one of the reasons we wanted to put that registration in the town code so that it's easier to amend as the state may or may not change their mind.

[2:12:31] But, and I see Mr. Spears about the jump-up there as well.

[2:12:35] If I may, Madam Mayor, we're trying to address multiple issues here.

[2:12:40] The 185-day requirement is designed to avoid this sort of corporate ownership of these

[2:12:50] rental properties which has become a problem throughout the country.

[2:12:54] The 90 days is to unlike the mayor's suggestion which I don't think we can do about limiting the number

[2:13:00] that can be in a particular zone.

[2:13:03] The 90-day use limitation that would apply across the board limits the number of times the properties you use that way.

[2:13:11] So it's reducing the impact in what we believe is a legal way, as opposed to a numeric cap.

[2:13:18] But the issue that we've put in the legislative package is to be sure that we other than just word of mouth or just asking people that we actually have some official way of tracking all the properties.

[2:13:32] within our community that are operating in this way and the way that the code is current.

[2:13:37] The state code is currently drafted, certain folks are exempt from registration.

[2:13:42] So how do we know? We're basically being told.

[2:13:44] We'll just trust us because you've got to trust the websites and the software companies that operate these things.

[2:13:54] And yeah, they're going to remit the right amount of tax to you.

[2:13:56] And it's all going to be taken care.

[2:13:58] We're basically being asked to accept that on faith as opposed to having an active across the board registration

[2:14:03] requirements.

[2:14:04] So the things we're talking about are really designed to address three different problems.

[2:14:11] If that clarifies it.

[2:14:14] We feel we need to do to protect the neighborhoods and the community and then where things fall out.

[2:14:28] Mr. Cummings.

[2:14:29] Thank you.

[2:14:31] In the, I know when we were, a couple years ago when we were working the, when it was still in the zoning ordinance,

[2:14:37] the standards for accessory or the homestay short-term residential.

[2:14:43] There was kind of like a,

[2:14:44] I using the term three strikes policy.

[2:14:47] Few were head by at two or three violations on that third violation.

[2:14:51] You lost your ability to have the permit.

[2:14:54] Do we maintain that?

[2:14:55] Or is it the changes that the state did not allow us to maintain that?

[2:15:00] We did revise that section per the town attorneys guidance to read number five here, penalties.

[2:15:11] Violations of the Subsection of Child Constitute of Zoning, Violation of Subjected, Forcement of Fines, Per article, 8 of the Zoning ordinance.

[2:15:20] And then it talks about town code, separate violation of Subjected, Forcement, Fines, etc. So that whole section was reworked with their guidance.

[2:15:29] But we lost that, like one, two, three, you're done.

[2:15:36] And we have to.

[2:15:37] But we still have the, it still include the right to revoke.

[2:15:42] It's still in there.

[2:15:43] I just, I don't know that we have it expressly, one, two, three.

[2:15:47] It's basically going to be up to the,

[2:15:52] The zoning administrator, telling us, okay, this person's a habitual offender.

[2:15:58] Well, I think it would be good if we're able to define it to two or three to bring that back

[2:16:06] as a vehicle to help regulate, which is what I think we're all trying to talk about as regulating them.

[2:16:14] And so if we are able to do that, I'd like to see three, you know, three to return.

[2:16:22] But I'm seeing the...

[2:16:23] Well, violations do the second.

[2:16:24] Yeah, I'm seeing you.

[2:16:26] You're certainly free to put it in there.

[2:16:27] If you choose, I mean, I think that the intent here was to basically defer to the zoning

[2:16:37] administrator as he works through his normal process of, you know, outreach, education,

[2:16:43] hope for corrective action, if it, and then let him or her, whoever's in the chair, make

[2:16:49] the determination based upon the conduct of the individual, do we have a true recidivist,

[2:16:55] Do we have some of you switching management companies who's are they dropping the ball for that reason as opposed to making it automatic adding that the human factor?

[2:17:05] Giving the zoning administrators some discretion. I think that's that's the long-weird trend draw and on and on most things I appreciate that on this

[2:17:12] I think it's having

[2:17:13] Having it say and giving the zoning administrator no matter who it is. Hey, you've got they've got three to get their act together on the third one. They're they're out

[2:17:22] You're legally able to do that. Thank you

[2:17:25] What about if, if, if the matter may have to go mind Mr. Spare, what, what other

[2:17:30] Apologies or opportunities do we have to regulate short-term rentals? Are we able to tax them differently?

[2:17:36] No, that is

[2:17:39] I don't think we can

[2:17:41] Okay, so they just paid the same TOT tag the transit oxygen right and that's where the

[2:17:48] There's a couple of problems. That's where the the non-registration

[2:17:53] And how do we know, right, we're essentially in a situation where we have taxes in place

[2:17:58] that we can assess both the property tax based on value and the transient occupancy

[2:18:03] tax based upon number of nights that the facilities occupied.

[2:18:09] But we don't have direct access to that data.

[2:18:12] It all basically goes to the state and with the registration requirement, there's no way

[2:18:17] for us to verify.

[2:18:18] Got you.

[2:18:19] I appreciate that.

[2:18:20] And for me, what I think, what I'd like to see is do,

[2:18:25] and I did a little research, I of course, left it at home.

[2:18:29] But I'd like to see us look at it,

[2:18:31] and we don't, I'm just going to say it though,

[2:18:32] it's out there and ask for maybe a future work session

[2:18:34] on it, because it's not something I think we can do tonight.

[2:18:36] But I'd like to see us look to create regulation

[2:18:43] and to push the short-term ranchers that property

[2:18:50] willing to adhere to the strict standards that we've put in place to run their short-term rentals

[2:18:55] in the town of Leesburg, or incentivize them in a way to instead of going short-term rentals

[2:19:03] to look at taking the property and renting it to a family, renting it to an individual for

[2:19:08] a multiple month longer than a short-term, a long-term rental, 12 months or more. Because

[2:19:14] to me, that's the balance we have to strike is these properties that go to, you know,

[2:19:20] handful of owners, sometime in Leesburg, we're seeing it on the same street.

[2:19:25] And that's not inventory that goes back, whether it's a rental for a young family,

[2:19:29] our young person moving into the town, or someone trying to move up and just stay in

[2:19:34] the town.

[2:19:35] And so I'd like to, I'm going to ask later for a work session to ask staff to kind of

[2:19:39] look to see what options we have to try to incentivize current owners of a short-term

[2:19:44] rental to convert that to a long-term rental versus continuing to use the short-term rental.

[2:19:51] Is that, does that mess with, what, you know, which of the timeline is or can we, at a later date have?

[2:20:00] Have a work session and maybe change this if needed?

[2:20:05] We certainly can do the research to see if we're even unable to put something in there that says,

[2:20:12] hey, adhere to these standards, or you can get some sort of incentives to rent towards your typical process.

[2:20:19] That's fine.

[2:20:21] Any

[2:20:24] other questions at this point?

[2:20:26] Well then, does Council, are there four people on Council that agree with the Residency requirement?

[2:20:36] Okay, that passes?

[2:20:39] Yes.

[2:20:39] Does Council agree with the 90D Max?

[2:20:42] Are there four people that agree with that?

[2:20:44] That doesn't go.

[2:20:46] Is there an alternative number?

[2:20:48] No, Max.

[2:20:49] I'll throw out 180 because that would be the other part if you're not there.

[2:20:54] If you're down and floored at that point, it gives you the opportunity to use it.

[2:20:58] there are four people that would be interested in that. Nope.

[2:21:04] Anyone else have any, I guess not, I guess it's just, yes.

[2:21:09] So I guess I just want to understand what planning commission added a 90 day max in the attempt to help mitigate the issue of just having an Airbnb that's just rendered all year constant churn.

[2:21:22] The residency requirement was also thrown into sort of fixed that as well.

[2:21:30] So, you staff thinks that one 80 is appropriate because that is our full year 300 now.

[2:21:37] Now, staff is comfortable with the residency requirement, addressing pride of ownership,

[2:21:43] keeping the residential neighborhood character,

[2:21:45] staff, it does not need or support the 90 days max per year limitation.

[2:21:54] So, sorry, I'm not a word of that wrong.

[2:21:56] So, 180, which is the Delta.

[2:21:59] When I say 180 max, really you're saying there wouldn't be a max.

[2:22:03] Because you're already 180 as max.

[2:22:06] Because you need to live there 185.

[2:22:08] Not exactly.

[2:22:09] You can rent it at the same time you're living there.

[2:22:12] It could be all right. Well, then it's a bed breakfast. Well, not necessarily. You're utilizing

[2:22:17] 40 or stays of 30 days or less. Okay. If you live there, you're around. You could do it. You're around. Okay.

[2:22:24] Okay. I see what you're saying. So staff is okay with 365. If you're living there, 185 out of the year. Yes. Okay.

[2:22:33] So yeah, I was going to say so we don't have any sort of agreement across council on this.

[2:22:43] So if it's under occupied, I don't agree with a max, but if it's non-over occupied, absolutely, I would put a 90 day max on it.

[2:22:53] Can we do we can specify that? Well, I mean, if it's owner, I mean, if we're doing the 185, it's got to be no matter what owner occupied.

[2:23:02] It's our own operating and occupied operator, thank you operator occupied, so with the 185 in place do we feel that adequately adjust addresses some of the issues that we were trying to address.

[2:23:18] I don't but.

[2:23:20] Okay, so I mean, that's I guess I just I don't want to leave this one out on the table, that was my point. I mean, or we can return it.

[2:23:28] If we want to think about it more, is that the plan?

[2:23:31] Well, I don't, gentlemen, none of you voted for it.

[2:23:35] Are you opposed to having any number on it?

[2:23:39] I think that, for me, I find with the regulation of the residency requirement, the 185 days.

[2:23:48] All right.

[2:23:48] Let's strike that part.

[2:23:51] And then, does council wish to revise any other short-term residential rental regulations?

[2:23:57] We might, in the future, when we have that work session, are you anticipating bringing it back sooner

[2:24:02] than having a work session.

[2:24:04] I will try our best to do that research

[2:24:05] and bring it back most likely

[2:24:07] and their December date.

[2:24:10] The December?

[2:24:11] Is that satisfactory to you, Mr. Cummings?

[2:24:21] OK.

[2:24:21] All right.

[2:24:23] OK.

[2:24:26] The final topic for tonight

[2:24:27] was data center use standards.

[2:24:30] And this came from Council Member Steinberg and Krukowski.

[2:24:34] And this is when we also worked

[2:24:38] relatively recently recall that we evaluated, which district status centers should be permitted in, and we came up with a pretty significant list of data center use standards.

[2:24:53] And that occurred back in, let's see,

[2:24:59] 2020.

[2:25:00] 3. We also define data center and data center electrical utility substation. And so those standards carried

[2:25:08] forward to the draft. There's use standards that cover building placement, building mass, articulation

[2:25:15] and fenestration, which is a fancy word for windows or faux windows or glass, equipment screening, landscaping,

[2:25:22] and accessory uses and structures such as substations and generators. So we had recall that we adopted

[2:25:29] those use standards and data centers were permitted in the I1 district but then we had a subsequent

[2:25:36] legislative effort to say no actually it's just special exception in the I1 district and that's

[2:25:41] what's carrying forward now is special exception used in the IR district only. And so you know a little

[2:25:50] bit of trip down memory lane when we were developing these use standards the council asked us to

[2:25:59] work with industry representatives.

[2:26:01] So we went back and forth and worked with the industry reps and came up with a set of

[2:26:08] standards that we felt hit a good middle ground of mitigating impacts and addressing compatibility,

[2:26:17] but still ensuring efficient operations for the data center provider.

[2:26:23] We also heard from the environmental, folks, the Peat Modern Environmental Council and then some

[2:26:27] the standards were revised based on that input as well.

[2:26:31] So staff is comfortable with the use standards as is.

[2:26:34] We feel like they strike a good balance,

[2:26:37] but the council members wanted to talk a little bit

[2:26:41] about is their desire to perhaps add hours of operation.

[2:26:46] For backup generators, is there a desire to support

[2:26:50] additional energy efficiency measures,

[2:26:53] such as battery backup or high efficiency generators,

[2:26:55] And then also is there a direction to pursue additional incentives for adaptive reuse of data centers in the zoning ordinance.

[2:27:07] So those were the three questions.

[2:27:09] And before we go to those questions, I just wanted to cover data center reuse in a little bit more detail.

[2:27:16] So the idea here and this is an idea that the Virginia Municipal League is talking about now.

[2:27:22] They've thrown up a subcommittee to discuss whether or not we need to start being concerned

[2:27:28] about the reuse of data center buildings in the future.

[2:27:32] So we did a little research, couldn't find anything in the state code as specifically enables

[2:27:37] legislation for requiring developers to plan for reuse of data centers or industrial buildings.

[2:27:44] However, the state code does enable pretty broad zoning or it's authority.

[2:27:47] We also looked at some comparators, didn't find much in the way of adaptive reuse regulations,

[2:27:56] looked at loud and county Fairfax County, Henrico County, City of Alexandria, City of Hampton,

[2:28:00] City of Richmond.

[2:28:02] There wasn't an interesting concept in Arlington County called the Adaptive Reuse Amendment,

[2:28:07] and this was geared towards not just data centers, but industrial and commercial buildings.

[2:28:13] and the idea was, they recognize that they have a

[2:28:15] a dearth of vacant office space, and so they're trying to encourage and incentivize

[2:28:22] reuse of some of that that derelict office space, and so they've done that through

[2:28:27] streamlining the process and forming up some methodologies and some

[2:28:33] SOPs around quicker site plans for reuse.

[2:28:37] So that's one potential concept.

[2:28:40] And then we did some market research, and I've got the economic development director here, Mr.

[2:28:47] Seymour, that can speak to these data points in more detail, but based on Mr. Seymour's research,

[2:28:55] we're really not at any risk of market driven obsolescence for data centers right now.

[2:29:00] You've got approximately 230 data centers around county.

[2:29:04] That's 56.5 million square feet in operation under development, 35.7 million square feet

[2:29:11] approved in the pipeline and based on conversations, Mr. Seymour had with local developers.

[2:29:17] The demand is still outpacing the supply, based on the need of next-gen computing for AI and

[2:29:22] everything like that. So, based on all those data points, staff feels like this might not be

[2:29:30] of the time to address data center reuse and the zoning orders rewrite, however, it would be

[2:29:35] advantageous to keep monitoring what the Virginia Municipal League is doing in their data center

[2:29:40] subcommittee.

[2:29:41] So with that, I'll go back to the discussion questions.

[2:29:45] My first question to you is, do we have any control over when the generators are used?

[2:29:52] It was my understanding that that's determined by things of

[2:30:00] So use the usage and the fact that if there's any sort of emergency, such as one of the substations going

[2:30:08] out, the generators have to go on, because it has to, it can't, if you, if it were not to be

[2:30:16] cold, it would cause all of those servers to go down. So are we really, I mean, I thought

[2:30:23] we couldn't be the ones to say when you can have generators running in someone you can't, am I

[2:30:27] correct on that? I think what you have illustrated is a pretty safe assumption of the operational

[2:30:33] needs which is going to speak to that balancing act that we were going back and forth when

[2:30:38] we initially developed these standards. And so we didn't want to put any constraints on the operations

[2:30:44] that might cause the operation of fail so we did not include hours of operation on those generators

[2:30:50] at this time. Mr. Seymour walked right behind you at that point. Will you try and do you want

[2:30:57] to participate in this? You do have an opportunity when they're testing them. So they do have to

[2:31:03] test them on monthly basis. Sometimes they'll do it at certain hours of the day, certain hours

[2:31:07] in the evening. You do have the opportunity when they're testing them for non-emergency to be able

[2:31:16] to

[2:31:22] there. I mean, what hours would you, what hours of operation? I mean, when is the better

[2:31:28] time to let them do their testing? Is it better in the morning? Is it better in the

[2:31:34] morning? I don't, I have no idea. Does anybody, not at night? Not at night? Not at night?

[2:31:39] Not at night? Well, everybody may be asleep, but not know it.

[2:31:42] If I may have had a mayor, this is at least partially my item. What this actually part of this

[2:31:49] discussion stem from it and it seems to have evolved a little bit in the direction was the

[2:31:55] the running of generators and this is where I'm afraid that we may not have the ability to limit

[2:32:01] or push in any direction but this past summer we had issues because there was an abundance of heat

[2:32:10] and problems with that. Generators were essentially running continuously at some data centers

[2:32:16] and it came down to the fact that their battery backups were not able to keep up, essentially.

[2:32:24] So even though it could be deemed an emergency, a heat emergency, or related to the heat,

[2:32:30] in the end, it may have been that they just didn't have enough battery backups,

[2:32:34] that they were not adequately prepared with enough battery backups.

[2:32:38] And so my question was actually more so about, are there any levers we can turn to state

[2:32:46] say that you will make sure that you have enough battery backups to sustain operations and not

[2:32:52] have to turn your generators on in these events. Now, yes, the heat was pretty bad this summer,

[2:32:59] but there's nothing to say that can happen every summer for the next 10 years. It wasn't that crazy.

[2:33:05] So I guess my question is, is there any way that we can legislate that they are

[2:33:15] to handle a moderate heat emergency.

[2:33:21] That's kind of where I was going with that.

[2:33:25] Well, look at the town of 30 for that one.

[2:33:29] If I may, Madam Mayor, I think, prospectively,

[2:33:33] you can require that just like in our initial design

[2:33:39] standards, we specified a type of generator, right?

[2:33:43] There was a, I forget what the, there you go.

[2:33:46] And I don't think this is any different than that.

[2:33:51] I don't know that we have the technical expertise

[2:33:55] or the necessarily the authority

[2:34:00] to define what the level of battery backup should be.

[2:34:05] I don't know what we have that in it.

[2:34:09] We can use words like adequate sufficient things like that.

[2:34:11] But I don't know that we're going to call a disowning violation

[2:34:17] if we get a super high day and the battery back up

[2:34:19] gets overwhelmed.

[2:34:21] We can put a requirement in, but if it doesn't work,

[2:34:25] I don't know that we can violate.

[2:34:27] I don't think we can cite them.

[2:34:31] That was the direction I was actually going with my portion

[2:34:34] of the generator.

[2:34:37] Discussion was making sure that their battery backups

[2:34:41] adequate enough to handle what it's designed for and not that they're going to just say,

[2:34:47] well, it's fine. We can just run our generators for the next three days during this heat wave.

[2:34:52] That was that was the aim of my discussion for that. So if you have anything additional, that's great,

[2:34:58] but I didn't imagine that.

[2:35:00] And I also imagine that the state is probably looking at this too, because we had our own issue with the Microsoft campus, not that long ago. That was the same situation, right?

[2:35:13] That was the blowout.

[2:35:16] So none of the last, I'm sure that there's a lot of changes at the state level, and that we're constantly just watching to see what they're doing and then reacting to that, but I just wanted to kind of make sure.

[2:35:28] make sure that that was something that we were paying attention to. Thank you.

[2:35:32] Yeah, we're two, one to three.

[2:35:35] Understood.

[2:35:38] Yes, Mr. Stranger?

[2:35:40] Well, first of all, and I don't know who in the room is expert enough to answer it.

[2:35:46] To what extent can a data center actually have battery backup for any appreciable amount of runtime?

[2:35:55] Nobody knows.

[2:35:56] I wasn't aware, I mean, I know there's discussion now at the state level that a data center

[2:36:03] could do a solar installation and conjunction with a high energy use and that might

[2:36:10] buy this in time, but in the end the power consumption is so great, I don't know what type

[2:36:16] of battery backup is actually available. You're shaking your head. You're not in your head,

[2:36:21] I guess I should say.

[2:36:25] So, you're absolutely right.

[2:36:28] No amount of battery backup is gonna sustain the data center

[2:36:31] use, is that to normal operating time.

[2:36:33] Even if you just look at what it takes to cool

[2:36:35] out of the data center areas,

[2:36:37] no battery backup is gonna be able to do that.

[2:36:39] So that's why the generators kick in.

[2:36:41] And as you mentioned, when the heat gets up there,

[2:36:44] or when a substation goes down,

[2:36:46] one of the conversations we had with Microsoft for your example

[2:36:49] was the substation went down,

[2:36:51] Microsoft had no control over it.

[2:36:53] they kick on right away so they can't lose the data, but there is no battery back up it's

[2:36:57] going to sustain it.

[2:36:58] Yes, sir.

[2:36:59] Now, as I recall, when we were negotiating with stock for the data center at the village across

[2:37:05] the village of Lee's bird, we negotiated for Tier IV generators, but I then, I wasn't aware

[2:37:11] that we'd actually built that into an ordinance, but am I mistaken there, or...

[2:37:16] No, you're correct.

[2:37:17] We don't actually have a tier for requirement.

[2:37:21] In fact, we were advised that we didn't really

[2:37:24] have explicit state code enabling us to mandate energy

[2:37:28] officially standards, but it is something that

[2:37:30] can be negotiated through the offers.

[2:37:33] So when we get an application, we

[2:37:35] can certainly strongly suggest such things.

[2:37:40] Well, in the end, within the time of the time limits of Leedsberg,

[2:37:45] for which there aren't that many opportunities for data centers anyway, which isn't to say we shouldn't be as cautious and careful as we can be.

[2:37:53] I think we are going to, you know, have to step carefully and we're any other applications to be approved,

[2:38:01] then we will have to be willing to accept certain realities for that kind of operation.

[2:38:10] In today's technology, who knows what will happen next year or five years and so on, but for now,

[2:38:18] this is where we are with these buildings.

[2:38:21] So, okay, thanks.

[2:38:23] Do we have any requirement of how far away these buildings need to be from residential?

[2:38:29] Yes.

[2:38:30] Yes.

[2:38:30] Component of it, okay.

[2:38:34] Does the council wish to add hours of operations for generators?

[2:38:38] Do we want to go there?

[2:38:43] Does the count want to enhance support for energy efficiency measures, such as battery backups or high efficiency generators?

[2:38:50] No, can't do that one.

[2:38:52] Does the council want to pursue additional incentives for data center adaptive use?

[2:38:57] I don't want to incentivize them to do much of anything.

[2:39:03] I think on that point, we can just keep monitoring the efforts of the VML subcommittee.

[2:39:07] I believe that at the state level the governor has issued an executive order and a lot of

[2:39:16] it involves the state of senate conversation and I believe that after we use this part of the

[2:39:22] conversation but I don't know to what extent it's in any way solidified or certainly not

[2:39:37] We have a work plan, my question to you is the November 9th, what are we looking at November 9th?

[2:39:46] Sure.

[2:39:47] So if we go back to the attachment one that was in your packet, that's your deep dive list.

[2:39:54] And I'll just give a quick summary of what's coming up on November.

[2:40:00] So, I am on packet page 27, about two-thirds of the way down. So, review the work parking requirements, revisit and strengthen sustainability and set of measures, attainable housing, review consistency of setbacks across multiple districts, review the zoning map, gateway district boundaries.

[2:40:29] perhaps reducing those to market street after the bypass, review the zoning map for the carriageway

[2:40:37] town homes, whether or not to remove those from the old and historic district overlay.

[2:40:42] And then finally, to start looking at the revisions that your planning commission has been

[2:40:50] working on related to recent 2026 Virginia General Assembly legislation.

[2:40:56] And so there was a whole host of bills that came through and staff and the commission has drafted language to address some of those bills related to accessory dwellings, parking high energy use facilities solar facilities and affordable housing.

[2:41:13] Okay.

[2:41:14] Any questions?

[2:41:16] Yes sir.

[2:41:18] To that point, then the conversation about retail cannabis obviously we have to deal with relative sooner rather than later.

[2:41:27] And so is that going to become part of this conversation as we try to wrap this up?

[2:41:32] Yes, we've tentatively scheduled that one on December 7th.

[2:41:36] The commission's just getting started on that one, but they're moving quickly.

[2:41:41] And at setting the tax rate is something already in the work side for Zoom as far as our schedule goes.

[2:41:47] If I may have met a Mayor, yes, we have that schedule.

[2:41:50] We've got a timeline developed and when we have to implement the tax rate is part of that schedule.

[2:41:55] All right. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:42:00] Appreciate everybody's efforts.

[2:42:06] And the next item is the finding

[2:42:08] creases for zoning violations.

[2:42:10] And that's Mr. Spara and Mr. Watkins.

[2:42:28] I will try and go quickly.

[2:42:31] You requested this discussion a couple of months ago.

[2:42:35] We included this in our legislative agenda.

[2:42:38] But in our legislative agenda there's

[2:42:39] have any numbers in it. We just have tried to get some subtraction with our general assembly

[2:42:48] representatives.

[2:42:52] Just to refresh everybody's recollection, the state code allows us both civil

[2:42:57] penalties and criminal remedies. There's some thresholds before you can invoke the criminal

[2:43:05] violations we have incorporated both of those things in the zoning ordinance rewrite.

[2:43:11] Summary of the civil penalties we basically track what the state allows.

[2:43:18] So we're doing the maximum allowable under the state code.

[2:43:27] There is one thing that this relatively new in the state code.

[2:43:32] It allows a slightly enhanced violation of maximums for multi-family residential where in certain areas,

[2:43:46] it's going to get a lot more complaints because it's multiple units that may not be maintained properly.

[2:43:51] We don't have a lot of properties like that this earlier in the town.

[2:43:55] We've proposed in the draft ordinance that we're not going up to the maximum there.

[2:44:00] But again, this is not your generic zoning violation.

[2:44:05] These are limited specifically to specific multi-family properties.

[2:44:11] So that's the one place where we deviate from the maximum fines allowed by the state code.

[2:44:18] Our technical process, how we work, is, well, I'll back up.

[2:44:24] This is the statutory enforcement process.

[2:44:28] The notice of violation is what is the first thing that's required under the state code.

[2:44:34] If they get a notice of violation, the correction order, they have the right to appeal,

[2:44:38] it goes to the BCA.

[2:44:39] If there's no appeal, then it comes to my office and we begin enforcement.

[2:44:45] And then when you get an aggregation of civil penalties above a certain amount,

[2:44:50] then we can go the criminal route.

[2:44:52] And it's a misdemeanor.

[2:44:55] current staff practices as we've discussed previously we have

[2:45:00] We have a complaint-based system. Once we receive a complaint, staff verifies the facts alleged

[2:45:05] in the complaint. Our process, this is not required by the code, but our process, is we start

[2:45:12] with a courtesy letter. A curation letter, not required by law,

[2:45:19] but ours on the administrator

[2:45:20] and I agree with him, believes that outreach and education and working with the property

[2:45:28] in order to obtain corrective action is the best way to do things.

[2:45:33] They've had doesn't work, and we move to the formal process,

[2:45:35] which includes the notes of violation,

[2:45:38] potential referral to my office.

[2:45:41] We don't go to court very often.

[2:45:44] We don't have to.

[2:45:45] I think Mr. Watkins experienced tracks for the last six years.

[2:45:49] What mine has been that normally people work it out.

[2:45:54] they listen to what we're saying and they come around.

[2:46:00] This chart lays out since 2021,

[2:46:04] these are all the times we had to go to court.

[2:46:06] It's 14, 14 times in six years.

[2:46:12] And then there were two other times we went to court,

[2:46:14] not because we weren't getting compliance with the violation,

[2:46:19] But because we had sort of odd record ownership situations where basically the honor of record was deceased.

[2:46:30] And because there's a requirement in the state code, you have to give notice to the honor.

[2:46:34] But we knew the honor was deceased.

[2:46:37] We were sort of between a rock and a hard place and we ended up having to go to the circuit court and get into

[2:46:48] and there was no, quote, legal owner of record.

[2:46:53] So those two additional instances

[2:46:55] were we had to go to court,

[2:46:57] but it really had nothing to do with Mr. Wyckon's approach,

[2:47:02] not working.

[2:47:04] It was somebody taking advantage of a situation

[2:47:06] where they knew, well, if I don't probate the property

[2:47:08] and put the house in my name,

[2:47:10] they can't do anything to me.

[2:47:12] But once we got the, got the order from the judge saying,

[2:47:16] This is adequate for notice purposes,

[2:47:21] then we were able to do our normal process.

[2:47:27] There are some exclusions when you can go straight to criminal remedies.

[2:47:35] Again, this is all just in the way of summary.

[2:47:39] There are some special exceptions for non-permated commercial uses that don't apply within our planning district.

[2:47:45] again, that just summary what's in the state code.

[2:47:49] But as we talked about some other things that we could do, if the council wants to stay

[2:47:56] to take a different approach, we could engage in more proactive enforcement.

[2:48:01] Again, we have a complaint-based system, but if you wanted us to engage in more proactive enforcement

[2:48:09] either town-wide or, within a particular district, we could, we could look at that.

[2:48:16] Again, if staff is going out and doing stuff more proactively and not just responding

[2:48:20] to community complaints, that we might need more bodies to do that.

[2:48:24] We could skip the courtesy notice, again, that's not required by code, that's the best practice

[2:48:30] that staff believes is appropriate in a community like ours, but we don't have to do it.

[2:48:37] if you think that taking a firmer position sooner would help.

[2:48:44] For certain egregious situations, we can go right to court.

[2:48:49] And we have the right to go, and if the situation is bad enough,

[2:48:55] to get a temporary restraining order in a new junction,

[2:48:58] and basically to skip the other stuff.

[2:49:03] Against staff's views,

[2:49:04] at the current process of communication, education, and outreach remains the best practice,

[2:49:09] and it resolves the overall majority of the cases that we have.

[2:49:16] So we really need some guidance from you, as we, as if we can get one of our state delegation

[2:49:27] folks to carry the flag for us for state code amendment, what number do we want to ask for?

[2:49:37] You have to make a decision if you want to include in the zoning ordinance the higher multi-family penalties that the state code now permits.

[2:49:44] Again, we don't have that many properties and it's not staff recommendation that we match the higher penalties for multi-family properties.

[2:49:55] Again, as we've already discussed when we've put in legislative agenda, the higher penalty amount.

[2:50:00] Would require a change to state law. One of the other things that we talked about among staff is we could ask, even if we don't get them to give us a higher fine level.

[2:50:14] We could ask the general assembly to amend the state code to make unpaid zoning violations, statutory leans against the property like unpaid taxes are. That might give some additional leverage.

[2:50:26] I know from personal experience in a prior position where a company I worked for ended up owning a number of properties in New York City that when a property conveyed all the building code violations sort of conveyed with it and so you got a report as a purchaser in New York City of your outstanding violations that happened at closing.

[2:50:54] I think one of the problems we have here is that in the context of a sale, there's no

[2:51:00] notification to a buyer that there's an outstanding unpaid zoning violation fees.

[2:51:08] So if they attach like an unpaid tax lien would, that might give some more leverage and incentivize

[2:51:14] people to either not get fine to begin with or if they get fine to pay.

[2:51:23] So, that's sort of all we had for you on this tonight.

[2:51:26] Again, the question is what's the order of magnitude

[2:51:29] that the Council desires in our ask to the General Assembly

[2:51:33] if we get one of our legislative delegation to take up the flag for us?

[2:51:38] And then whether or not we want to change our current enforcement practices

[2:51:43] in any other ways that we've suggested.

[2:51:46] Mr. Watkins and I, preferably Mr. Watkins,

[2:51:49] We'll answer any questions that you have.

[2:51:53] Mr. Kerkowski.

[2:51:54] Thank you.

[2:51:55] Thanks Chris.

[2:51:56] I believe this was my item, I think.

[2:51:59] And part of the reason that I asked that this get added was that we had some issues regarding

[2:52:07] demolition here of structure or something.

[2:52:11] So do you mind going back to the slide that you had where there were cases that you had taken to court?

[2:52:17] And I just want to try to find an example, but so for instance say unpermitted parking lot expansion.

[2:52:25] That's easily correctable.

[2:52:26] Even regardless of the fine, you just could be like, hey, you're going to rip this out, right?

[2:52:31] That would be fall under dismissed as resolved, perhaps, or something like that.

[2:52:38] And that might be a question for Mike.

[2:52:39] But what a more seeking to understand is if there was, say, a historic or contributing fence,

[2:52:49] very historic fence, and somebody knocked it down and demolished, you know, took it out of there.

[2:52:55] Remedy-wise, whether it's fines or what have you, you know, you can't always reconstruct that fence per se.

[2:53:03] So what do we have as an enforcement mechanism when those kind of things happen?

[2:53:07] This, that was the driver of this conversation.

[2:53:11] Equi would elevate it to more than just a zoning

[2:53:14] infraction.

[2:53:15] And I think we would look for punitive actions,

[2:53:17] which would be handled by the tenant attorney's office.

[2:53:21] So that would fall, and that would be in the event of,

[2:53:24] and again, I don't want to limit it specifically to say,

[2:53:27] a historic item because I know that obviously

[2:53:29] brings in some other organizations probably,

[2:53:32] but just in general, when, if somebody maliciously

[2:53:35] go out of their way or, you know, demolishes something and it can't be resolved.

[2:53:45] It's not necessarily going to be a fine.

[2:53:47] I think the more, again, one of the options that we laid out here is,

[2:53:51] it's one of the tools available is if we see something that's egregious,

[2:53:56] we don't need to go through the, the fine process.

[2:54:00] We can go straight to court and get temporary restraining order.

[2:54:03] And so in a situation like that, where in your hypothetical where you see something being demolished

[2:54:10] or you see some other egregious use, which is causing something that has more immediacy

[2:54:18] to, we're not limited to, you know, to know the violation, $200 fine, we can go down the street

[2:54:26] and get judicial relief and make them stop.

[2:54:29] And if they disregard that order, then you get a bench warrant and they go to jail.

[2:54:35] So in the more egregious circumstances, we would use the more

[2:54:44] severe remedy.

[2:54:45] I guess it's what I think.

[2:54:46] Do you feel that our fine tables, and I do agree with the community aspect of a courtesy letter

[2:54:54] and trying to, I think that fits what we try to do in this community,

[2:55:00] After that, do you feel the fine tables are adequate? Based on what you showed us, there is some room for us to move, but staff, recommendation-wise, do we feel like those are adequate?

[2:55:11] We are at the maximum, and there was some wiggle room for...

[2:55:17] The only place where wiggle room was on the multi-family, and that's something that's relatively new.

[2:55:22] Okay. But for non-multi-family situations or minds, track exactly what the, this is the multi-family

[2:55:32] chart you saw, but we track exactly what the state code allows. Okay. Excellent. For the vast majority

[2:55:40] of violations, we're right at the max when the state allows. The only place where we digress from that

[2:55:46] is, and these multi-family enhanced multi-family violations are new. So they weren't in the

[2:55:54] because these are new limits that were recently, recently allowed by the state code.

[2:56:01] But staff based upon the mix of properties that we have in our history and enforcement,

[2:56:07] we don't feel the need to go up to the new state statutory max for multifamily.

[2:56:14] So that's really the only place where we deviate from the max that the state allows.

[2:56:19] And this is, this is in town code, correct?

[2:56:22] This is the state code.

[2:56:24] This is from state code.

[2:56:26] So the first column there of Virginia code, maximum.

[2:56:30] That's the max allowed in the state code.

[2:56:32] And then it works as draft ordinance as it were proposing in the new zoning ordinance.

[2:56:37] Thank you.

[2:56:42] First of all.

[2:56:44] Keltsman Kaskin.

[2:56:45] I got to have the thumb rest of all.

[2:56:46] Whose idea this was.

[2:56:48] But.

[2:56:50] Look in the end.

[2:56:51] The whole point of this conversation wasn't to be over.

[2:56:54] trying to be overly punitive as opposed to trying to discourage what we sometimes perceive

[2:56:59] is consistent, bad behavior. Because the low level of fines simply was not much of a deterrent

[2:57:06] for certain individual scratches, do things knowing that there was not much of an expense

[2:57:11] in the end. I guess we're going to have to wait and see what legislature does. It's a short

[2:57:17] session whether or not they will get to this or other jurisdictions that probably don't have this

[2:57:22] We're going to have any sympathy for us whatsoever.

[2:57:26] So I will say I had a conversation with folks from the city of Richmond who seemed to have some interest in this.

[2:57:35] So I don't think we're alone.

[2:57:37] Oh, good.

[2:57:38] I don't think we're alone.

[2:57:40] But ultimately, you're right.

[2:57:42] Councillor Stranger, it will require some action by the state before we can exceed the dollar amounts.

[2:57:49] Yeah, exactly.

[2:57:50] And again, I tried to lay out the few things that we could do if you want us to be a little

[2:57:55] more aggressive and enforcement, but I don't think that's what staff desires.

[2:58:00] I'm given the way that Mr. Watkins and his staff do a really good job of keeping stuff

[2:58:06] from creating work for my staff, because they work through it with the property owners.

[2:58:11] They get the property owners to comply.

[2:58:13] We've got a few folks who don't, and then they have to talk to my staff.

[2:58:19] But generally, those are few and far between.

[2:58:22] And I understand that completely and again,

[2:58:25] it's not an effort to be generally heavy-handed.

[2:58:28] But when it deserves that kind of attention

[2:58:31] that I think we should be more firm

[2:58:33] in our approach in certain situations, you brought up something,

[2:58:38] and it was discussed at the VML.

[2:58:41] What is there's a legal term, and this is actually

[2:58:45] was brought up hopefully for consideration by state legislature when you have a change of ownership.

[2:58:54] And so you have basically a transfer of the same facts from one owner to the other,

[2:59:01] why you shouldn't have to go back to square one to re-establish a case. What is I can't remember

[2:59:06] legal term for that. I don't want to put you out of the spot either. What you're describing

[2:59:14] is if something is, for example, like a tax lien, that's a record. So that's in the land records

[2:59:23] and when someone does their title search when they buy the property, they're on notice of that.

[2:59:28] So it basically follows the conveyance. It's of record. So I think what I was suggesting

[2:59:36] in my comments there was that if the unpaid violations became a lean like an unpaid tax

[2:59:46] would, then the purchaser is on notice because it's in the land records that this is a

[2:59:59] and stop the shaker.

[3:00:00] Please, just be great. But I can't remember the term. Okay. Maybe I can find it for you. All right. Well, I'm going to have to talk to anybody about that.

[3:00:07] Thanks. Thank you. Thanks, Chris. I want to go back a little bit and kind of refresh my memory of the genesis of this topic.

[3:00:18] But I thought I recall that this was brought up in a work session as if there was a problem

[3:00:28] that needed some resolution.

[3:00:30] When asked, staff gave a couple of recent examples that my perception was that staff felt

[3:00:38] the way the issue was handled, the tools staff had available to them, there was still a gap

[3:00:46] in terms of applicant behavior.

[3:00:52] So one was, I think I recall, a couple of stop work orders were issued, but we're ignored.

[3:00:59] And resolving that was considered unsatisfactory.

[3:01:06] And so what we did, Chancellor Wilt, was we sort of bifurcated our discussion into two pieces,

[3:01:12] a discussion in open session regarding, here's what we do.

[3:01:17] Here's the things we can potentially ask for from both the town or assembly, and things

[3:01:22] we could potentially do differently generally, and then we have closed section where we

[3:01:29] would talk about specific cases, because my advice was to not talk about specific cases that

[3:01:35] were still ongoing in open section, because that's contrary to the legal advice that I get.

[3:01:43] So that I think is how we've tried to bifurcate the issue.

[3:01:49] So those couple of issues, there were specific.

[3:01:53] I'm not quite drawing a specific line between

[3:01:57] a recommendation that you feel would satisfactorily, for example,

[3:02:02] have prevented or mitigated those couple of, which are the rare

[3:02:07] I agree just cases.

[3:02:09] What are the specific recommendations that we think we should pursue?

[3:02:16] Again, I feel like if we're in a situation where the zoning administrator feels as if he's

[3:02:23] not getting compliance with a situation that is egregious, then he would come to me and we

[3:02:32] would discuss getting a temporary restraining order.

[3:02:34] I think that's sort of the biggest hammer in our talk in our toolbox that we could use.

[3:02:38] Okay, and that's a tool that was available, so it could have been used in those cases as you would just say, if it wasn't chosen.

[3:02:47] Yeah, I believe, as I was just in my opinion, but there was enough, enough back and forth with staff and enough attempted cooperation that we never really got to the point where we talked about doing a temporary restraining war.

[3:03:02] But that tool was available to us.

[3:03:04] But we also feel that the increased fines would be, you know, another tool if, and it might be more meaningful.

[3:03:16] So as specifically on the options page, the one that you recommend pushing forward with is,

[3:03:23] If the general assembly bites, then yes, I feel like the current finds out for not attention.

[3:03:31] With the property values up here, I think they're too low.

[3:03:36] Or would be the word that would prevent that behavior?

[3:03:42] It's a disincentive.

[3:03:43] Okay, so do we have that already actively on our?

[3:03:48] Yes.

[3:03:48] Let's say who is pursuing that?

[3:03:50] We have met with members of two, I believe two or three, and we have our legislative delegation and have brought that up each time.

[3:04:05] So, we're waiting to hear if we get some traction back.

[3:04:08] Okay.

[3:04:08] We've discussed that specific issue.

[3:04:10] We don't know if they're waiting.

[3:04:12] Success on that front.

[3:04:13] So, in interim, then the current posture is that

[3:04:21] The assertiveness or the timeliness in which we pursue restraining orders is the tool in the toolbox of choice.

[3:04:31] And when Mr. Watkins tells me he needs me to go get one, I'll go get one.

[3:04:35] All right. Thanks, gentlemen.

[3:04:42] Is there a motion to adjourn?

[3:04:45] What's the matter?

[3:04:45] So we have closed session.

[3:04:54] It's your progative if you want to continue with them or not.

[3:04:56] You can skip it if you want, but we have, but we have, they're not urgent.

[3:05:02] We'll proceed with the section 2.2-711-A7-and-8 if a kind of Virginia that's released for a ten council convene and closed meeting for the purpose of consultation with legal council and staff regarding a potential litigation and a provision of legal advice related to zoning matters and consultation with legal council and briefing by staff members regarding specific legal matters of all the encouragement on the town owned Air Force property. Is there a second?

[3:05:27] I want to say...

[3:05:29] First.

[3:05:35] Renée's.

[3:05:36] Yeah.

[3:05:37] You need to know who...

[3:05:41] You gotta be joined.

[3:05:46] Bye.

Town Council Work Session

Agenda

Transcript