The planning planning commission pre-meeting for February 11, 2026 is now in session.

Welcome to our pre-meeting.

Thank you for taking part in the business of our city.

The first order of business is the agenda overview discussion.

We have a total of six applications, of which one application is for continuance or withdrawal.

Mr.

Boswick, would you please provide the commission with an overview of the application?

Yes, good evening, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

We have one request for a continuance.

PLN-PUDM-2025-001, the scenic heights PUD modification with the applicant requesting a continuance to the March 11, 2026 meeting.

And we have no applications being withdrawn.

Do any commissioners have any comments or questions regarding this item?

We'll get without any objection, the item will be placed on the continuance withdrawal portion of the agenda.

The first item is item number one.

Good evening, Commissioners.

I do not have any updates on this application.

We have received eight emails and one phone call, all in opposition, citing concerns with schools, traffic, roads, infrastructure, property values, quality of life, things like that.

Do any commissioners have any conflicts with this application?

Do any commissioners have any questions for staff?

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none.

Is there any objection of placing this item on the consent agenda?

I would like to see this on the regular agenda, please.

All right.

Regular agenda it is.

Next item is item number two, elbow estates proffer modification.

Mr.

Bell, do you have any updates regarding this item?

Good evening, Commissioners.

We have no updates on this application, and we did not receive any citizen comments either either on this.

Do any commissioners have any conflicts with this application?

Do any commissioners have any questions for staff?

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none, is there any objection of placing this item on the consent agenda?

All right, then item number two will be on consent.

Our next item is item number four, the Morton Academy.

Do you have any updates regarding this item?

Good evening.

There have been no updates on this application, and there have been no public comments either.

Do any commissioners have any conflicts uh with this application?

Do any commissioners have any questions for staff?

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none, is there any objection of placing this item on the consent agenda?

All right.

Item number four will be on consent.

Sorry, excuse me.

Obviously, she's not Miss, so I just want to let her introduce herself real quick.

Sorry, I'm Lydia Uchin.

I'm the customer service planner.

Sorry about that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Our next item is item number five, Simmons stable.

Mr.

Bell, do you have any updates regarding this item?

There are no updates on this application, and we did not receive any citizen comments on this one.

All right.

Does do any commissioners have any conflicts with this application?

Do any commissioners have any questions for staff?

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none, uh, is there any objection of placing this item on the consent agenda?

All right.

Item number five will be on consent.

Uh the next item is item number six, the Deep Creek Area Plan.

Uh Ms.

Nagorniak, do you have any updates regarding this item?

Good evening, Commissioners.

Uh, we received one comment letter from the Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee, um, BTAC, as well as one email uh comment in opposition.

No other updates, and if there are any other questions about previous comments or community engagement conducted, um, I'm happy to answer those as well.

Perfect.

Uh do any commissioners have any conflicts with this application?

Do any commissioners have any questions for staff?

Is there any discussion?

Here and none, is there any objection of placing this item on the consent agenda?

All right.

All right, so the consent agenda consists of the following items items number two, number four, number five, and number six.

The regular agenda consists of item number one.

Uh the next order of business is the planning commission committee report, old business.

Is there anything to report from these committees?

Yes, you can.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

I had the opportunity to visit, excuse me, Prince William County on Monday to look at some data centers.

Um we had a wonderful trip, very, very informative.

Our staff was so impressive.

Um, and we really got to visit um, I guess they have 55 data centers already built in Prince William County.

Um, and we got to drive and we got to listen to the noise or in um most of the instances, the lack of noise, um, to my surprise.

Um and it was really informative.

It was really great to have the support of Prince William County and their staff and to have people who have been through a lot of trial and error on the topic.

And so um one thing that um I was really impressed with was the leadership there said, please feel free to plagiarize anything on our website.

And so we've got a wonderful group within our state um that's already been through this and is you know at our disposal to help us navigate such an important topic.

So we will um you know be studying and and uh reporting back.

Wonderful, and I know data centers are becoming a uh a big issue.

I know we had one last year that came before the the planning commission, and uh I know there's a number of bills that are that are up in the general assembly.

So uh this item, you know, and this this thing around data centers is is really gonna affect us.

So thank you.

Um anybody else with committee reports?

Old business?

All right.

The next up we have summary of new public hearing applications received.

Mr.

Bostwick.

We have one new application in the pipeline, and it is a planned unit development.

Wonderful, thank you.

Um initiated text amendments.

Ms.

Neil.

I have no new initiated text amendments to report this month.

Thank you.

All right.

Our final discussion we have for tonight uh is going to be the bylaws discussion that we will talk, of course.

Um we pretty much need to come up with consensus if we want to change things.

Um and then that can go forward uh before we can vote on a on an actual uh bylaw change, it has to be published at least two weeks in advance.

Plus, council has to review it, and that's part of the city ordinance, I believe.

Um so it it would have to go for council to know kind of what we're what we're talking about.

Um I think at the last meeting um we I talked a little bit about um tied votes.

Um this was something that was brought up last year.

I don't think it will happen very often, but always look forward to something and be proactive rather than reactive.

Was that if we do have an item that is dual advertised, which means it's gonna it's hidden for city council.

Um right now our policy is if we have a tied vote, it has to go back to our next planning commission meeting, um, which is usually gonna be the next month.

Um no problem if it's not dual advertised, I don't have a problem, it can come back.

But if it is dual advertised, there's been a great deal of resource put in by the applicant to move this forward, uh, and there is a reason.

And so it's just looking for a remedy to to move it forward and to get it to the city council and and to be fair to the applicant and and everybody involved.

So I had talked about um making it that if we did have a tie vote at that particular issue, whether it be like tonight where there's eight of us here, um, or whether it be the fact of there's nine of us here and somebody has to abstain or uh you know can't vote on the matter for whatever reason was to look at a potential bylaw change to send it to council.

So I still kind of bring that up and and at this time, you know, if we have any discussion, um let's have some discussion and and if you know if we decide that it's not a good idea, we'll we'll we'll drop it, we'll go to the next issue because I do have another one after that.

Uh if but let's decide what we want to do as far as that goes and and what the opinion is.

So at this time, uh anybody who would like to address the question.

I would love to Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you.

I agree with you that efficiency matters, but so does deliberation.

And a tie vote shouldn't automatically function, in my opinion, as a forward momentum.

And so if an application is going to advance without recommendation, I feel there should be a deliberate decision by a majority of the commission, not a default one.

Um not a default outcome of division, really.

Um some of my concerns would be that a tie signals division, not clarity.

Umatic advancement really lowers the practical threshold.

Um I know that my peers here have the best of intentions, but also the door could be open for strategic extension abstentions, which could really create momentum without majority support.

Um I think it's important that we we consider that balance.

And finally, council benefits from knowing whether the council intentionally waived its recommendation.

Um I don't think it's about delay, I think it's about intentional governance.

Um what I would recommend is if an application uh vote does result in a tie, the tight does the tie doesn't constitute a recommendation, but that you, the chair, um, would immediately call for a procedural motion.

And so a motion to forward the city the application to city council without recommendation.

So it could still get there, not necessarily being held up.

Um but that motion would then require a majority of the members present.

And so if the motion passes, the item proceeds to council as scheduled, labeled no recommendation.

So they still get it, they just get from us no recommendation, and if it fails, then the item still has the opportunity to stay with us.

Um I think if if the motion passes, the applicant should proceed to city council as scheduled with no recommendation.

I don't want to hold those things up that shouldn't be held up.

But if it fails, it should be continued and rescheduled in accordance with our standard procedures that have been held for this long.

Chair.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Millone.

So I'm in the middle.

I agree with both of you.

But but uh I I disagree with providing something to council with no recommendation.

That's our that's one of the whole purposes of us being in place is to provide counsel to the city council.

And to forward something without a recommendation, I think does not do due diligence on our part.

Mr.

Chair.

I would respond that that's exactly what we're doing if we do what Mr.

Chair has suggested.

And so by putting that next layer in place, we say we're strategically making the decision to do this and saying we don't want to hold it up so that they can't make the progress forward progress.

But we also, because it could be an emergent situation.

It could be something where, like if council doesn't get it and it's not approved in a certain timeline, the project is is gone.

They, you know, they lose the opportunity.

Um and I think I agree with you.

That's why I want to put this safeguard in place, because to just change it to say, okay, we're just gonna let it go, even if we didn't agree, we could it i if it if it didn't get our stamp of approval, why would it move forward?

But this just gives us that layer of protection to go, okay, we're not gonna agree, but we think council should have the opportunity now to do what they're gonna do.

Otherwise, if if we stay like we've been, we're gonna hold up projects.

There's another option.

So we usually have the opportunity for two meetings every month.

If there's not if there's a a tie vote on the first meeting, maybe that's an item that gets pushed to the the second meeting with everyone in in in place.

And Mr.

Chair, that's how we've operated.

So my question would be how quick does something get dual advertised go before city council, because you gotta remember there's two Tuesdays coming between what it would be our next meeting.

Typically when an item is concurrently advertised, take this month, for example, if we had a an item on tonight's agenda before the commission that was concurrently advertised, that item would be going to City Council next Tuesday, the 17th.

There would not be sufficient time to adjust the advertisement in that instance.

And Mr.

Chairman, if I could just a point of clarification on what the bylaws currently say, and I certainly don't say this to sway anyone's decision.

This is an important discussion amongst the Commissioners, and these are your bylaws.

I would just draw the Commission's attention to the current process in the bylaws in the event of a second tie vote.

It is not that the item is sent to council without a planning commission recommendation.

It defaults to a recommendation to maintain the status quo.

And the bylaws spell out that on a rezoning, that means that the planning commission's recommendation would be to deny the rezoning because the current zoning is reasonable, allows for an economically viable use of the property for text amendments to deny it because the current ordinance is reasonable and appropriate.

So it would preserve the status quo.

That would be the Commission's recommendation.

The current process would not provide an item without a recommendation.

Now, certainly I'm sure, and I would I would let planning director McNamare speak to this more, but I believe that staff in their update to council would advise counsel of the procedural happenings before the Commission that it wound up in a tie vote, and that's why the recommendation is to preserve the status quo.

But there is still some recommendation there from the planning commission under the current process.

Right.

And that was something that I didn't bring up is, you know, if we had one today and we we went back in March and we still had a tie vote because somebody couldn't vote on a particular issue, then after that second meeting, it does go to City Council.

And some approve and some say we're in support and some say we're not based on the tie vote.

So there is that that could maintain.

The other part of this, and I guess I have a this will be some of the legal questions uh that we have is can we have our bylaws state that if there is a tie that there is a procedural motion that has to be made?

Um kind of what as uh Commissioner Seguella had had suggested, you know, we get a tie vote.

It just doesn't automatically go.

There has to be a procedural motion.

Is that is is that appropriate to have in bylaws?

I think it would be.

There's nothing legally that would prohibit this body from deciding that's the process that you wanted to follow if that was the will of the commission.

I mean, and I have no problem with that.

I mean, I I think, you know, again, this is not about just getting rid of it.

This is about putting some thought into it and and trying to meet with them.

But I think if we did have a tie vote, I would be in support of of having a procedural motion that has to be made.

And then we we collectively have to think about that.

You know, is there a reason to not really send us and to bring it back?

I think it gives us the latitude to look at any in any circumstances uh that may not regularly be considered by this.

So I I don't have a problem with with that.

I think the, you know, I I'm I I would be in support of that.

I just, again, you know, we're talking about people that have invested this is their business, this they have invested money, they have invested considerable amount to get to this point.

I mean, you know, the these people that come in and whether they're an attorney or whether it's the civil engineer, you know, they're not coming because they might get a job, they're coming because this is part of the process.

So I I would be uh okay with that.

I don't I don't know what the other thought, you know, if anybody has any other thoughts on it.

Mr.

Chairman, I have a two-part question.

Um, do we have data on how many a year we see that are concurrently advertised?

Commissioner Gilman, I do not have data in front of me.

I can tell you anecdotally, it is infrequent.

Okay.

Second part of that is what for what reasons would they be concurrently advertised.

Applicants typically request a concurrent advertisement when there is some impending deadline.

Uh they may or may not provide their reasons to council, or they may or may not provide those reasons in a public meeting.

It may happen with discussions with council members one-on-one.

But typically, uh, you know, in my experience, we've seen applications over the last couple of years, there have been a couple that have been concurrently advertised because the applicant was under contract to purchase the property, and the deadline for them to actually close and take ownership was coming up, and they wanted to get through the public hearing process before they actually had to go to closing.

That would probably, if I had to guess, would probably be one of the more common reasons for needing to expedite the process like that.

Thank you.

I asked that just because I don't want to drive a behavior either by a decision that we make.

And I think most people don't look at our bylaws.

It's more of what we do, but I think and again, this would be probably an you know, thinking it out and and and listening uh to the vice chair, you know, that makes sense.

That's not somebody that's that's going to be able to shop it.

That's us then coming going, all right.

Now, you know, we've had this tie.

Do we want to bring it back or do we go ahead and and go because that's truly what we're thinking?

You know, it puts it in there.

Um again, I you know, like I said, I'm just trying to be proactive rather than reactive, because if we get reactive, we're gonna sit here and and not have something worked out.

So Mr.

Chair.

I'll defer to the Vice Chair.

No, please just real quick, I would suggest that if this is the will of the commission that we consider whether that procedural motion is necessarily or automatically a motion to move the item to City Council, or if it would be up to the maker of the motion, which could introduce an additional layer of complexity to this process, but certainly, in my opinion, either would be lawful.

Mr.

Chair, my uh excuse me, my preference would be that it would be automatic and and fair every time.

Um to Commissioner Gilman's point, there may be um a situation where I just I can't support a uh um an application.

I just don't agree with it, but I also don't want my neighbor to have to spend a fortune coming back and back and back for something that I don't think that they should have to do.

So I would want to see it move forward to council without that recommendation because I'm not gonna change my vote on it, but I want it to be done one way or the other for them, and I would vote that way.

Any other comments.

So at this point, we kind of need to decide do we want to leave it?

Do we want to go ahead?

Because again, this is going to be reviewed by council.

Uh so Mr.

Tetter would be able to have them review it and we would be able to put the language out that we could actually vote on it at the next meeting.

So are we good with with moving forward with the change with the the automatic and and at this point I just you know probably say you know, just you know, if you if if you're not, then we need to know.

Um Do you want me to read the language?

Yeah, would that be beneficial?

Yes, yeah, sure.

So the language I have, and I'm certainly open to change, Mr.

Tetter, is in the event of a tie vote on an application that has been concurrently advertised for planning commission and city council public hearings, the tie vote shall not by itself constitute a recommendation.

Upon a tie vote, the chair shall immediately entertain a procedural motion to forward the application to city council without recommendation.

The procedural motion shall require an affirmative vote of a majority of the members present.

If the motion passes, the application shall proceed to City Council as scheduled with no recommendation from the planning commission.

If the motion fails, the application shall be continued and rescheduled in accordance with standard procedures.

And of course, we would always have uh Mr.

Tetter fancy it up with the legal terms.

Uh Commissioner Mullan, I I think that weakens the current language.

Because right now, as Mr.

Tutter said, the recommendation would would be it's a status quo, right?

So you what you're saying is that we're gonna we're gonna push forward a recomm or no recommendation.

But the current language would provide a recommendation.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

I I don't agree with that language.

But Mr.

Chair, that would be after a second meeting and a second vote.

Right?

Correct.

That that is correct.

That the language if it's tied and what and what happens with the recommendation is after a second vote.

Right.

Second meeting.

And our goal here is to accomplish getting it out of here.

Okay, second vote in the in that first night, one way or the other.

And I would I would think that if you know, and if if if there was really some heartache with with not sending it with the recommendation, you know, that second that motion comes up about whether you send it or you bring it back.

So it still gives you the you do.

You you you're right.

But but again, all of our vo our one votes are all equal.

So um nothing weighs more than than the other.

So you're still getting the same two votes.

It's just now in the same night.

So instead of doing it on two second two separate nights, it happens all on the same night so that it goes to city council on the next week instead of in the next month.

Yeah, that the only difference is if we it's extend through two months, you get a recommendation.

If we do it in one night, then you're saying no recommendation.

So it kind of leaves to an extent, it leaves it up to the commission on how to how to move forward that forward.

One clarifying question.

Um we're we're saying this only applies to concurrently advertised items, and those are in frequent.

So I don't know if that makes you feel more at ease.

No.

I can always vote no.

Absolutely.

So is everybody good with the modification?

Well, I mean, anybody who who who's not good with moving, and of course, this is going to be majority, and we're going to vote on it again, so uh with an actual I think vote, I believe, right?

So okay.

So if you can draft up some language and and and put that forward.

Um through the bylaws, there is another potential change.

Um, you know, you you you hear me say it that uh uh of course if if we have somebody who comes up on uh continuance, um every speaker gets three minutes to speak, but that has to be on the continuance.

Anything that comes up on consent that's a speaker, everybody gets five minutes.

Um then when we get to the regular agenda, you've always heard that if it's three or less, it's five minutes, and if you have four or more, it's three minutes.

Well, in reality, our bylaws are off a little bit, it is three or less, four or more for those in support.

And the same goes for those in opposition.

So it's not a totality of the speakers, it's the categories of the speakers.

So if you had five people in support, they would get three minutes each, and technically if you had two people in opposition, they would get five minutes each.

And so I think uh that's that's a difference in the bylaws from what we've doing.

And again, we need to enforce we expect everybody to follow our rules.

We need to follow our own rules, is kind of my thing.

So we've talked about uh or or I've kind of looked at the potential of maybe making this a little simpler for the amount of of speakers that we have in the time limit.

So that's up open to discussion.

Um again, it's different time limits for different categories.

Um I think if we want to be consistent, we can do potential of maybe a time limit across.

I mean, I don't know what the difference is of somebody having five minutes, you know, and and then all of a sudden fourth person shows up and they only got three, they've got to get that same information.

So I don't know if we want to consider maybe making it across the board that it's three minutes per speaker.

Um it's open for discussion, but I will tell you that something probably we either we need to do what we're saying or we need to modify it in some form for uh fashion.

If we're talking about the speakers, I would say let's go ahead and recommend what we want to recommend now.

So you're saying make it uh uh a time limit based upon the total number of speakers and that's the that's what we do now in regular agenda.

However, the the the bylaws say for in support, if you have three, it's five minutes.

Over four, it's three minutes, and then the same thing happens for the for anybody who opposes.

Our meetings, we actually do the the totality.

If we have five speakers and three against, and or even if we have four in support and one against, they all get three minutes.

That's what we that's that's what we have been doing for quite a while.

So it's just merit, you know, making this right.

I mean, if we're making the paper match what we're doing.

It's either doing that, and then the other thing again, and it's and it's looking at the five minutes if you if you're on consent and three minutes if it's a continuance of making it simplified of and again, and again, I don't know how how a lot of people, but a lot of people are not comfortable coming up here and speaking and they do that thing where they practice their speech and they think this is how much time they have.

But you know, when you think you got three minutes and you write it, it's really a five-minute speech, right?

And so when I come up and and you know, you're halfway through and I'm and we say time, they're not prepared.

So for me it would be consistent to to be able to say this is the time you have.

Um so thoughts.

Mr.

Chair, I agree.

I think when when people come and are prepared with their remarks, they should know what amount of time they're gonna have.

So if you come in expecting five and you only get three because there's too many speakers, then they're not able to articulate the points that were maybe the most important ones.

And oftentimes people will put the most important points at the end to kind of close with and then get stopped early.

Um and and also the fairness piece when people on one side, you know, that are four get a different amount of time than the people that are opposed.

It just doesn't feel right.

And so I think um maybe it's a little convoluted with so many different what ifs, and if it were just every speaker gets three minutes, that would feel so much cleaner to me.

Any other thoughts?

Are we discussing three minutes or five minutes?

I'm I'm trying to distinguish here.

Talk about five minutes, then we're saying three minutes.

Somebody may say two minutes, like, okay.

So what minutes are we trying to determine?

So as of now, when we have this, and we do have a continuance tonight, and we do have consent, and we do have regular.

So when somebody so when we deal with the continuance, if somebody wants to speak, they have three minutes, because that's what the bylaws say.

They have to speak on the continuance, not the merits of the case, but on the continuance, but they get three minutes.

Our next phase will be our consent.

And we could have whatever you have, and we could have 60 speakers.

Every speaker gets five minutes, because that's what they say they get on consent is five minutes.

And then when we move to regular agenda items, if I take this, the the first one we have, if you have buy or bylaws, three or more or three or less in support, they are going to get five minutes.

If you have four more in support, they are going to get three minutes each.

And then when we go to opposition, three or less, they get five minutes.

If you have four more, they have three minutes.

So there's quite a so depending on the category of speakers and the and the issues you have, some get five, some get three.

Um so the idea is to make it more consistent, where if it's a continuance, if it is consent, if it's regular agenda, whether you are in support, whether you are against, you make it one, it's a three-minute time limit.

So that is what we are trying to do is see do we want to modify the speaking times.

And again, we we can modify the you know one particular area with with regular and keep continuances and and and consent of where they are at now.

It is just we are doing these recommendations and and if we're gonna change, let's decide what we're gonna change with the speakers.

So, Mr.

Chair, practically speaking, why would someone that's on consent get five minutes to talk about something we've all agreed, they're probably not going to have any issues with, and someone that is really concerned about impacts on their community only get three.

So it just feels to me like three across the board makes sense.

Commissioner Williams.

Just to clarify.

When you laid out all the different variables that place can take place, that took about two minutes worth of speaking.

So if we just make our streamline our bylaws to make it universally that every speaker is allotted three minutes, regardless of a proposition or continuance or in favor or any other or any part of the speaking thing.

It just makes it easy and like like it was stated, that gets people an opportunity to prepare themselves correctly and don't get sideswiped when they come in because other people are here.

It's only fair.

Yep.

And practically speaking, three minutes is worst case anyways, right?

So it makes sense that we plan for the worst case, not for the few people that are gonna come in and for lack of better.

I ain't gonna say that.

Three three minutes is best.

Any other comments?

I just agree.

I didn't understand the five minutes for consent if we have already said that this makes sense for the city.

So consensus is we're looking at regardless of of continuance, consent, regular agenda, number of speakers, we are looking at at making it and it's three minutes.

That way, if you come before us and you are you are on consent, you can speak three minutes.

If you are in support, you speak three minutes.

You know, regular agenda.

If you are against, you get three minutes.

It makes it consistent and it makes it fair.

Mr.

Chairman, quick point of clarification.

We do sometimes have speakers who would like to speak to multiple items either on the continuance or consent agenda.

The bylaws currently provide that individuals are given one block of time to address all items on either the continuance or the consent agenda.

Is it the will of the Commission that we keep that same requirement but just reduce the time from five minutes to three, or that it would be three minutes per item, regardless of where it is on the agenda.

So if somebody wanted, if there were, you know, like tonight, if there were four consent items and somebody wanted to speak on all four, that would be a total of 12 minutes for that one speaker.

I I look at it this way.

If you are coming in, you are on two different items, we're giving everybody three minutes to speak about their particular their particular issue.

I don't have a problem with giving people three minutes if they are speaking on different issues.

I don't know why that and again that's condensing numb down.

Now I'm saying because you want to speak on two public items, you're only going to get two and a half minutes on each on each one.

So I'm I'm good with the three minutes just make and make it simple.

But that's that's me.

So we don't want to encourage the wrong behavior either.

To hear themselves speak.

So maybe a compromise would be that if there are multiple issues that they're going to speak on.

I'm sliding back into the old way.

Maybe we allow an extra two minutes, and you know, they get five minutes to speak on everything, whether whether it's three issues or twenty issues.

And if you are speaking on a single issue, it's three minutes.

But I don't I don't think we want to we want to set the stage for someone coming up speaking on every issue that's on the agenda.

Every time it would seem to me, Mr.

Chair, that they would have the opportunity to have the three minutes during the time of the discussion of that particular item only.

So if it's a consent, they'd have three minutes for consent.

And then if there were new items or you know, other items, it would be under each item.

Yeah, I think what I think what I think what we are talking about, so this would be me.

If we took the six items that we have tonight, and let's just say two of them are consent, and and the other four are regular, they're gonna get three minutes for each regular item that comes up.

Because we're gonna call them individually.

I mean, so if if we're speaking on items two, four, five, and six tonight, they're gonna come up and they're gonna speak in support of the regular agenda item two.

They're gonna come back up and speak on the regular agenda item four.

They're gonna come back up when we are dealing with five.

For consent, I know what we are talking about is if we're dealing with one and just say it's three for for tonight, you know, do they get three minutes and then three minutes?

Because consent, we just kind of call them in order, right?

One after the uh after the next.

So again, it would be, you know, do we want to consolidate it?

It would not affect regular agenda, correct?

It's just the consent.

And that's and again, it is just a consensus of of do you want to give them three minutes for every item regardless of whether it is consent or continuance or regular, or are we going to limit it for that one particular arena?

Mr.

Chair, I think if it is on consent again, the consensus is amongst the commissioners that there is agreement.

And so three minutes should be sufficient per speaker for that section.

So if I come in, I have got three things on consent, I get three minutes to talk about all three.

Not nine minutes, but three minutes.

Right, three minutes.

Or you can say if you have more than one, you have five minutes.

I mean, that that's what we get to do.

I think we are in agreement.

I think we are in agreement that with continuances and regular, it's three minutes.

And and and then when we get to consent, are we in consensus that it's three minutes to address your issues?

Whether you have one or whether you have two or you have three, or are we talking about three minutes to address the consent overarching consent agenda?

All right.

I think the consensus is three minutes across, and if you have multiple items, you have to get them all in in the three minutes.

All right.

So Mr.

Titter will will draft up some language.

Um again, that has to go and has to be reviewed.

Um, then what we can have them typed up and then potentially voted on next month.

So Mr.

Chair, I just want to add that if if it turns out to be that that creates a bit of a challenge for us, we could always change the bylaws to something different and longer next year.

I agree.

And and the other part of this is that I think if if we have the three-minute limit, we are still available that after their three minutes, if any commissioner has questions of those particular individuals to call them forward.

Not to say just finish what you are saying, but to ask them specific questions that you want answered and to allow them to address them.

So there's still that potential as well.

So all right.

Umybody have any other uh potential bylaw changes or things they want to address in the bylaws?

All right.

And if that is the case and there is no further business to consider, uh, this meeting stands adjourned at 6.38 p.m.

May I have the attention of everyone in the council chambers and those outside in the lobby.

Tonight's planning commission meeting is scheduled to begin in five minutes.

The speaker cards are available on the table outside the council chambers.

The plan and commission public hearing for February 11, 2026 is now in session.

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

For those who wish to participate, you're invited to remain standing for the invocation.

Commissioner Malone will lead the Pledge of Allegiance.

The invocation will be offered by Commissioner Gilman.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

As we gather today, let us pause and open our hearts to the deeper purpose of our work.

May we be mindful of the responsibility entrusted to us, and may a spirit of wisdom guide every conversation we share.

We ask for clarity that helps us see beyond our individual perspectives, compassion that keeps us grounded in the well-being of our neighbors, encouraged to make choices that honor both the present and the generations to come.

May unity be more than an ideal.

May it be the force that shapes our dialogue and strengthens our resolve.

Let the work we do here today be rooted in respect, lifted by hope, and aligned with the greater good of the community we serve.

With gratitude for this shared calling, we begin.

Please be seated.

As a reminder, please uh silence your cell phones.

I'd like to welcome each of you to our meeting tonight.

Thank you for taking part in the business of our city.

Mr.

Boswick, please call the roll.

Commissioner Bearfield.

Present.

Commissioner Gilman.

Present.

Commissioner Halliard.

Present.

Commissioner Malone.

Here.

Commissioner Squelia.

Here.

Commissioner Spruell.

Here.

Commissioner Taylor.

Here.

Commissioner Williams.

Present.

Chairman Hackworth.

Present.

The minutes for the January 14, 2026 public hearing are being considered for approval.

Do the commissioners have any corrections or revisions?

If there are no corrections, the minutes are approved by unanimous consent.

The commission rules and procedures are available at the table in front of the chambers on the screen in the chambers.

They are also available online at our website.

Upon planning commission action of either approval or denial, the remainder of the items shall be heard by City Council next month on either the third or fourth Tuesday beginning at 6 30 p.m.

in this chambers, unless otherwise denounced tonight.

Normally, an application is withdrawn without further discussion.

In the case of continuances, it is the planning commission's policy to continue the item as requested by the applicant or staff.

Mr.

Boswick, are there any requests for withdrawal or continuance?

We have one item requesting a continuance and no items being withdrawn.

Mr.

Boswick, please read the application into the record.

The continuance item is agenda item number three.

PLN dash PUDM dash 2025-001.

The project is Scenic Heights PUD Modification.

Applicant is NVR Incorporated.

Owners are NBR Incorporated and JCBLLC.

Agency is William Smolen.

The proposal is a modification to the scenic heights PUD to alter the development timeline for the required right-of-way and infrastructure improvements and to amend the previously approved walking trails to a multi-use path around the development.

The location is 668 Shilala Road.

722 Chaletla Road.

732 Chalet of the Road 808, Shilala Road, 816, Chaley of the Road, 844, Shaley of the Road, 856, Shilala Road, 912, Shilia Road in the Grassfield Planning Area.

Based upon the applicant's request, staff recommend that PLN dash PUDM-2021-001 be continued to the March 11, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

Secretary Malone, are there any speakers on the item for continuance?

There are.

Speakers, you may hold your comments until the meeting at which the item will be fully discussed, or you may speak on the continuance now.

If you choose to speak, you must limit your comments to the continuance request only, and you cannot address the merits of the application.

Each speaker will have a total of three minutes.

Secretary Malone, please call the speakers.

Speaking in support of agenda item number three, Mr.

Grady Palmer.

Good evening.

Chairman Hackworth, Vice Chair Squale, I get to see you, members of the Commission.

My name is Grady Palmer, my business address 222 Central Park Avenue in the City of Virginia Beach.

I just wanted to just give a brief overview of the reason for the continuance and then just what we're doing with the request to make modifications next month.

And so the reason that we continue the item or requested the continuance is that the property ownership actually changed.

So there will be a new applicant and a new owner.

So I've got to update all the signature documents in the legal ad uh for the planning commission's got to change.

And so that was that was the reason for the request.

But just for the sake of the of the public listening, that nothing is changing with the proposed development.

What we're doing is coordinating timelines for the completion of roads so they so they all line up.

And then the other the other major thing that we're doing, and it's not really major, but uh we have since fully delineated the wetlands uh on the uh eastern side of the property where there is a large forested area.

Uh with when the project was approved, it showed uh walking paths through the central forested area.

So now we we've now understood that those that that central part of the uh forested area is jurisdictional wetlands, and so what we have proposed to change is instead of going through the middle of the forested area, we're gonna go around the forested area on the perimeter.

Uh and in places where it makes sense, we're actually going to do an elevated boardwalk.

Um we actually think there's some uh interesting changes uh in there as well to actually elevate the boardwalk.

So just wanted to put that on the record just so people know what uh what's happening with this application.

Uh thank you very much.

Next speaker.

Speaking in opposition of agenda item number three, Ms.

Linda Tyndall.

Good evening.

Linda Tyndall, 1045 West Road.

Can anyone tell me how many times Scenic Heights has come before the Planning Commission and the City Council?

How many more times will it be allowed to be returned for an accelerated proffer modification and then continued and then returned again because the market has changed and then continued again and again.

By the time the games have been played, scenic heights will look completely different from the design that was approved.

What can be done to protect the citizens and Mr.

McNamara's staff from going through this with scenic heights and other developments?

It is a waste of both time and resources.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

There are no other speakers.

All right, at this time, the chair will accept the motion to continue the items as read by Mr.

Boswick.

So move.

We have a uh motion second.

Second.

We have a motion by Commissioner Squelia.

We have a second by Commissioner Malone.

Please prepare to vote.

Please vote.

Mr.

Boswick, please record the vote.

By a vote of nine to zero, the motion carries.

The second order of business is consideration of the consent agenda.

The consent agenda contains those items that the planning staff believes are unopposed and have a favorable staff recommendation.

Speakers on items placed on the consent agenda will be given a total of five minutes to address the commission.

If you have an objection to an item being placed on the consent agenda, please note your objection when you address the commission.

Also remember that if you are on the consent agenda and you just want to make yourself available for questions, you may do that as well.

Secretary Malone, are there any items on the consent agenda in which there are three or more speakers in opposition?

There are not a question.

So at this point, the consent agenda will consist of items two, four, five, and six.

Mr.

Boswick, please read the consent agenda items into the record.

The first item is agenda item number two, PLN dash REZ-2025-011.

The project is ELBO Estates proper modification.

Applicant owner is Elbow Estates LLC.

Agencies Williams Mullen.

The proposal is a proper amendment to allow the construction of no more than five, I believe my script says three, single family dwellings in the former right-of-way.

Three.

Thank you, Mr.

Bell.

Three family single family dwellings in the former right-of-way reservation area for the Southeastern Expressway.

The location is Appalachian Court, north of the intersection with Teton Court in the Green Briar Planning Area.

Based on the findings contained in the staff report, staff recommend that PLN dash REZ-2025-011 be approved with proffers as listed in the official agenda.

Next is item number four.

PLN dash USC 2025-047.

The project is the Morton Academy.

Applicants owners, Patricia and Tiana Morton.

The proposal is a conditional use permit to operate a child daycare as a level two home occupation.

The location is 5220 Jones Lane in the Rivercrest planning area.

Based on the findings contained in the staff report, staff recommend that PLN dash USC 2025-047 be approved with stipulations as listed in the official agenda.

Next is item 5.

PLN dash USC 2025-055.

The project is Simmons Stables.

The applicant is Robin Simmons.

Owners are Linda Simmons and Robin Simmons.

The proposal is a conditional use permit to operate a horse boarding and training facility as a level two home occupation.

The location is 2104 Elbow Road in the Green Briar Planning Area.

Based on the findings contained in the staff report, staff recommend that PLN dash USC 2025-055 be approved with stipulations as listed in the official agenda.

And finally, agenda item number six, PLN dash COMP-2026-001.

The project is Deep Creek Area Plan.

The proposal is proposed amendments to the adopted Chesapeake Comprehensive Plan to amend the text correlating maps and technical document as necessary to adopt and incorporate the Deep Creek Area Plan based on the findings contained in the staff report.

Staff recommend that PLN-CMOP-2026-001 be approved as listed in the official agenda.

That concludes our consent agenda.

Secretary Malone, do we have any speakers for items on the consent agenda?

We do.

Please call the speakers for items on the consent agenda.

Speaking in support of agenda item number two, Mr.

Grady Palmer.

I'll stand by questions.

Next speaker.

This person has made themselves available for questions.

Agenda item number four.

Ms.

Tiana Morton.

Next speaker.

Speaking in support of agenda item number five, Ms.

Linda Tyndale.

Got it right there.

Good evening again.

Linda Tyndale, 1045 West Road.

I absolutely support this agribusiness opportunity at the Simmons home.

Please approve the conditional use permit.

I've known Robin since we were teenagers riding our horses on the shoulder of Elbow Road and around the many farm fields that used to be there.

We cannot do that now.

Robin is an accomplished equestrian and a successful business owner.

I would trust her with the care of my horses.

It takes multiple streams of income to support agriculturally zoned properties.

Her barn is fabulous.

The arena is top-notch, and her driveway is wide with plenty of turn space for trucks hauling trailers.

The local citizens are in need of opportunities to learn to ride, board their horses, and continue with their training in a safe area.

Horse owners and riders contribute significantly to our local economy.

Chesapeake needs to support and encourage rural business opportunities if we're going to keep the farmer on our city flag.

Please approve this conditional use permit for the Simmons stable on Elbow Road.

Thank you and happy trails.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Available for questions in support.

Ms.

Robin Simmons.

Next speaker.

Speaking in support of agenda item number six, Mr.

Rogart Ross.

Good evening.

I'm Logart Ross.

I live at 3800 Rivercrest Place here in Chesapeake.

I am the chair of the Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee.

And overall, we very much appreciate the plan, including a strong emphasis on preserving and creating open space, connecting the communities with sidewalks, bike paths, trails, and building community.

The plan builds nicely on the trails and connectivity plan adopted last year.

One key area where the plan could be better is along pedestrian and bicycle safety along military highway east of George Washington Highway.

The section of the roads are already listed among the top 5 percent of Virginia roads in terms of danger to pedestrians and bicycles.

Very sadly, in December, a nine-year-old boy was hit while crossing the street and died on that stretch of road.

The plan envisions on eliminating the service roads along military highway and turning it basically into an eight-lane roadway, which will make it even more dangerous to try to cross that street and end up cars going more quickly.

While the plan includes sidewalks along both sides of military highway and even the CR-use bicycle path along the south side of the roadway, it only details plans for pedestrian crossings at Yatkin Road, which is just west of George Washington Highway, and Canal Drive.

These two crossings are 1.2 miles apart.

That is a 20-minute walk.

No one is going to walk over to one of these crossings.

The plan does have a little icons for potential crossings in between, and we understand from planning department that they are planning to do another study on the military highway crossing corridor, which will look at the need for crossings there.

So we'll make emphasis that pedestrian safety and bicycle safety are critically important.

They are just, if not more important, than making sure the cars go a little faster.

And so we need to get these crossings in place no later than when you take the service roads out.

And we need more crossings that are better spaced along the roadway.

It is very critical, and everyone on the bicycle and trans advisory committee felt that was important.

Is um the plan again also takes a strong emphasis on streetscaping and planting trees and emphasize the importance of them.

I'll just highlight that beyond uh making it beautiful uh trees along those streets also reduce urban heat and calm traffic again, making it somewhat safer for people.

Uh but overall, very nice job on the Deep Creek plan.

Kudos to the planning staff and uh look forward to seeing this approved.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Speaking in opposition of agenda item number six, Mr.

Michael Rigg.

Good evening, Michael Rig, 817 Buck Street, 23323 zip code.

I live in the Deep Creek area.

I have a raise in the Deep Creek area.

I have gone to school in the Deep Creek area.

I have worked in the Deep Creek area extensively.

I do not approve of the uh work that is going to be bulldozing through essentially some of the uh uh low-income residential area, some of the uh current uh uh structure for her or the local businesses and such.

There's an area where her or the general population use is on fixed income Medicaid, Medicare, and uh housing supplement.

They cannot afford for her the property taxes in the area to skyrocket when the project goes underway.

But I do not think that should come at the cost of the residents who live here and actually work here, not being able to afford to continue to live in this city on the basis that we may get people that can increase the property value and pay higher taxes rather than the low-income people that currently live there that need to be serviced after years of this city not spending enough on roadways, sidewalks, bike lanes.

The number of people that have been hit by cars trying to cross George Washington Military Highway is unacceptable, but that should not come at the cost of those people that need this infrastructure not being able to live here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Speaking in opposition of agenda item number six, Mr.

Angelo Camacho.

Angelo Camacho, 3301, South Military Highway, Chesapeake, Virginia.

I'm coming here because I'm not in total opposition to the planning, but there's some parts that's being left out.

And I feel like in front of my particular shop that was mentioned previously, where a nine-year-old lost his life is a part that's being left out of the planning.

Right there.

We've had numerous.

I I first of all, I've been there for uh over 11 years now.

And um since I've been there, we've seen numerous accidents occur at that particular intersection of Bower and South Military Highway.

Um about 10 years ago, we got some action by talk to the city and talk to the news, the city of the news, all of us came together.

They put in some um new turning lanes right there and some lights there.

It started reducing the traffic accidents there for pedestrians and uh automobiles.

Um that being said, you know, it's still been accidents there.

We've been trying to, you know, uh talk about a light and trying to get some action for a light or a crosswalk there for many, many years.

And then basically the last trial for us and for the community was when the young man Makai lost his life.

Um he was only nine years old walking across the street.

One thing we got going on over there is it's it's very dimly lit all the way through.

Like there's like 40 lights out from canal to George Washington Highway.

That's a huge problem.

There's like no light out there at all.

Um there is two hotels on either side of my location and in between Bower Avenue that uh they house a lot of people.

They house people that are going to school, children, everything, and then people are going across the street to Dollar General and to Pizza Hut.

Um so that being said, uh, if you watch the news at all, News Channel 3, it's been on there a couple of different times.

You can see the people walking across the street of busy South Military Highway where the speed limit is now, I believe 50 miles per hour, and they're going every bit of 60 out there.

There's no stop in between canal and George Washington.

It's just a racetrack.

So what we're asking for, and what you know, we've got like 1,300 signatures online for this is we're just asking to like what the gentleman said earlier, uh put in some more lights and put in some more pedestrian walks, specifically at Bauer and South Military Highway.

Um you can look it up.

It's been like 84 accidents since in the past like 10 or 11 years, and out of them 84, I believe it's been like 14 fatalities.

Um it's probably one of the most deadly intersections in South Military Highway, period.

Um another thing that's my concern is I have a business there as well.

Um we get a lot of engines delivered, we get a lot of toes delivered, that service road that they're talking about taking away is something that small businesses and even large businesses like the propeller shop that's beside me that has large billion-dollar government contracts, they get stuff delivered on that service road, they get large propellers delivered on that service road, and it's illegal to go into the residence area to be able to drop their stuff off.

So that would pose a lot of problems as far as for the businesses as well.

And you know, just like another speaker had said for us to be able to foot the bill, these are already low-income uh businesses, and we're servicing a lower income demographics over here.

So, you know, to bring all this in and make the city, I mean make the uh the residents pay for all that.

That's that's gonna be a big thing, and that's gonna be detrimental to the small businesses in the area as well, I feel.

Um that's what I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you guys for listening to me, and thank you all for all y'all's efforts on the plan that you have.

Thanks, sir.

Next speaker.

No more speakers.

All right.

That concludes our speakers.

Is there any discussion for these items?

Hearing none, a motions in order for the approval of the consent agenda with applicable stipulations or proffers as read into the record by Mr.

Boswick.

Move approval.

Have a motion, second.

So we have a motion by Commissioner Howyard and a second by Commissioner Taylor.

Please prepare to vote.

Please vote.

Mr.

Boswick, please record the vote.

By a vote of nine to zero, the motion carries.

The next order of business is the regular public hearing agenda.

When there are three or fewer speakers, each speaker will have five minutes to present comments to the commission.

If there are four or more speakers, each speaker will have three minutes to present comments to the commission.

Mr.

Boswick, please present the first public hearing item.

It is agenda item number one.

PLN-REZ-2025-009.

The project is Vibean Reserve North.

Applicant is Kroll Residential Incorporated.

The owner is drawn development group LLC.

Agency is Williams Mullen.

The proposal is a conditional zoning reclassification of approximately 25.3 acres from A1 agricultural district to R8 residential district.

The location is west of Berkshire Forest, north of Viridian Reserve, and south of Hanbury Woods in the Great Bridge planning area.

Mrs.

Neal will now present staff's findings.

Staff offers the following findings.

As proper, the proposed rezoning continues a compatible residential development pattern while dedicating public parkland, extending a critical roadway, and preserving open space opportunities for future pedestrian and vehicular connections.

The proposed residential rezoning aligns with the city's smart growth principles by supporting attractive communities, walkable neighborhoods, and compact conservation design.

The proposed rezoning supports city councils' desired outcomes for environmental responsibility and connectivity by preserving some environmentally sensitive features and providing both pedestrian and vehicular connections to surrounding properties.

Based on these findings, staff recommend that PLN REZ 2025-009 be approved with proffers as listed in the official agenda.

Secretary Malone, do we have four more speakers for items to be read into the record?

We do.

Since we have six speakers for the uh the item, each speaker will be allotted three minutes to speak.

And prior to that, uh let me turn the floor over to Commissioner Howard so that he can uh put a statement in.

Good evening.

I'm Commissioner Lee Halliard.

I would like to disclose that I own property close to the location of this application.

Although neither I nor anyone of my family will receive any benefit from this project.

And the City Attorney's Office has confirmed that this does not create a conflict of interest for me.

I make this disclosure to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

And I would like to state for the record that I can participate in this matter fairly, impartially, and in the public interest.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Secretary Malone, please call the speakers for the uh item on this uh for the please call the speakers for this item.

Speaking in support of agenda item number one, Mr.

Rodney Flores.

I'm going to just end that request.

Next speaker.

In support of agenda item number one, Mr.

Tyler Rosa.

Good evening, Chairman Hackworth, Vice Chair Swellia, members of the planning commission.

My name is Tyler Rose.

I'm an attorney with the law firm Williams Mullen here tonight on behalf of the applicant.

Business addresses 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1700, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

I'd like to thank staff and Ms.

Neal for the hard work on the presentation and for the application for the presentation.

So in di this project, in addition to providing much needed quality housing uh to the city, uh is a key piece to the city's plan for this area.

It uh is going to provide important north-south and east-west connectivity as shown on the plan.

Uh the project will extend Edinburgh Parkway to the northern edge of the property, will allow future connection to Hanbury Road.

Um, and also there's a stub road uh shown on the plan that will allow for connection to drawn that will integrate into the Great Bridge Estates development um to the west of the property.

Ultimately, this will allow for connectivity from Hanbury Road down to Peaceful Road, which will run through the um Ashbury Meadows Meadows PUD as that's developed, and then also allow for connectivity from Johnstown Road to Edinburgh Parkway all the way um across the Battlefield Boulevard.

So this will allow for alleviation of traffic pressures on the surrounding areas, particularly Hambury Road and Battlefield Boulevard.

Um also uh alleviate uh a lot of congestion at the Kegman intersection, which is one of the primary intersections for the Veridian Reserve neighborhood and also some of the surrounding communities, um, and that's a unsignalized intersections.

That's uh pretty difficult intersection, so this will allow for a lot of further connectivity and exit points from that um neighborhood.

Um, it will also allow for enhanced first responder times to that community.

Currently, I believe the fire stations up at the intersection of uh Johnstown and Hanbury, and they have to go Hanbury to Battlefield and down around.

This will allow for um shorter first responder times to serve that community coming down Edinburgh Parkway, and as reflected in the fire department's comments in the staff report, they're supportive of that extension as well.

Um this is uh compatible residential use consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan in addition to the quality construction and design that are shown in the elevations bordered on three sides by other single-family residential communities.

We have a 10-foot landscape buffer on the south and uh eastern portion of the property.

Uh, we're keeping trees where possible and uh have supplementing with additional plantings.

Uh we have a dedicated three-acre uh public park, um which is primarily wetlands, uh conservation area and open space on the western portion of the property and a BMP with walking trails that will integrate into a walkable community that will uh have street trees throughout the community as well to uh allow for the an enjoyable pedestrian access.

Um, obviously schools are always a consideration with these type of projects.

Um the city obviously is trying to address those on a grander scale.

We can only do what we can as a developer, so we've proffered as part of our proffer statement that um we will not have any certificates of occupancy until the Southeastern school um uh expansion is completed.

Um we are uh trying to alleviate our pressures on the that school in that way.

So, in closing, uh this project is a key uh piece of the city's plan for this area.

Um, and we believe it provides quality housing that the city desperately needs and also will allow for future connectivity uh in this area.

So I'll stand by for any questions.

We have the project engineer and uh developer here as well.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Speaking in opposition, Ms.

Rhonda Kundritics.

Thank you, members of the planning commission, for hearing us out.

I am Rhonda Kundrad.

I have lived in Veridian Reserve since the very beginning.

I have built my home ten years ago and I originally moved from the Greenberrier area, which was very overcrowded and had no green lands.

Could you state your address for the record?

I'm sorry.

State your address for the I'm sorry, 357 Wisdom Path, Chesapeake 23322.

I come here to plead with um the planning commission because when we started with Veridian Reserve, it was sold to us that this is going to be a green area, an area where people can come and enjoy all the surrounding community, all of the wonderful visible um landscape and all of the natural resources that were around this area, including the habitat for the animals, the local animals, whether it's the Chesapeake Bird, whether it's the um all of the native animals that are there.

But this was something that was sold to all of the people that moved into Veridian Reserve.

We were told not long after we moved in, and that those proffers that the gentleman just spoke about were going to be sent to our schools.

At the time it was Hickory, middle school, Hickory High School, and Southeastern Elementary School.

Well, probably a year after that, we were redistrict out because we were told that those schools were overcrowded.

There were too many residents in the area and its surrounding areas, and we had to go to Great Bridge.

What has changed since then?

No less than four additional communities have been built in that surrounding area.

What hasn't changed is the infrastructure.

What hasn't changed is the school.

What hasn't changed is providing a resource for many of the residents in the area to look for places to send their children to school without having to worry about them crossing a street and getting hit by a car, because there's so many people there.

When I listen to the developers talk about affordable housing, as if Chesapeake needs more housing, and I look at these beautiful homes that they're looking to build.

The starting price of these homes are $700,000.

That means $4,000 a month.

Is that affordable housing?

So what else is going on here?

Because that's not affordable housing.

That's not something that's going to add to our community.

All we're doing is adding more people without addressing the issues of infrastructure.

School, keeping with the mission of Chesapeake, which means we want to have those green lands.

We want to make sure we're we're preserving the environment.

Chesapeake's own website talks about the natural wildlife, the hundreds of birds and the species that are throughout Chesapeake.

That's what's set separates us from Virginia Beach from North, from all the surrounding communities.

We're now giving that up.

I understand that we want to grow.

But there's a difference between the urban community and a suburban community.

So I thank you for listening to me, and I plead with you preserve what Chesapeake is supposed to be for the people, for our beauty, and don't destroy it any further.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Speaking in opposition, Ms.

Brooks Bangler.

Good evening.

I'm Brooke Spangler.

I live at 324 Wisdom Path.

I'm a property owner in Verdian Reserve.

I have lots of feelings about this new development, but I'm sure you guys have heard about people who don't want uh new housing behind their home where they've lived for 10 years with just looking back into the woods.

So I just want to focus on some concerns that I have about this new development.

Uh number one is that that area where this new development is uh slated to go is an environmentally sensitive area where there's lots of water and lots of uh just wetland.

And so my concern is that building this new development with all these new houses is gonna push that water into neighboring areas.

My home backs up to what is now planned to be a very large retention pond, and the 10 foot buffer would not allow for any sort of trees or anything between what is will be the retention pond and then also drainage ish behind my property.

So there's a lot of water that's going to be directly by my behind my home, and I'm concerned about flooding, honestly.

My second concern is the traffic, or referred to as the connectivity by the lawyer.

Um the traffic is uh going to increase.

And so the uh extension to Hanbury is going to increase the number of traffic that is already uh two-lane road right there around the high school, around Great Bridge High School, and so that's gonna increase dramatically.

And then uh from Hanbury all the way south to Edinburgh Parkway.

Um, that's gonna be a straight shot through my neighborhood where my kids play outside and increase the number of cars that are going through.

Uh, and I worry about the safety of my kids playing outside.

And number three, which Rhonda touched on is the schools.

I know that there is an extension currently in Southeastern Elementary being uh completed uh that won't address the student need or the student um the number of students that are attending the elementary school.

There are portables at the school that will not go away once this extension opens.

Uh and there are already multiple pro uh developments that have already been greenlighted around this area, and so just this week, both of my children had two new students in their classrooms because of the new properties or the new developments that have already been launched.

So I appreciate your thoughts or appreciate your consideration and being mindful of this area that might not need new housing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Speaking in opposition, Ms.

Rachel Beth Johnson.

Okay.

I'll read fast.

But um my name is Rachel Johnson.

Um I go by that.

How's that?

Yeah.

Okay.

So I am uh Rachel Beth Johnson.

I am at 326 Wisdom Path.

Um I wrote you a story.

So uh when my family moved into Viridian Reserve and the surrounding Hickory and Great Bridge community, uh, we didn't just buy a home.

Um, we chose a way of life, and that was away from the congestion of Virginia Beach.

We chose a neighborhood surrounded by towering trees and natural beauty, and we chose a community where children can grow up seeing the wildlife instead of the construction cranes and bulldozers.

Now that that is all at risk.

So the forest behind Varedian Reserve, it's not just an empty land waiting to be cleared.

It is a living breathing part of our community.

It's a home to wildlife, including endangered bat species that depend on those trees for survival.

And they also take care of all of all of our mosquitoes.

So you know, got off track.

So it is a wildlife, including endangered bat species that depend on those trees for survival.

It is a natural barrier that protects our neighborhood from flooding and storm damage.

One of the things that Brooke had talked about.

And it gives our community its character and its beauty and its peace, like our name Viridian Reserve.

So once those trees are cut down and they cannot be replaced in our lifetime, and generations of growth would disappear in weeks.

We walk our neighborhood paths and we see a deer walking around the woods at midnight through dusk.

We hear owls at night, we watch our children get excited with the wildlife.

These are not small things.

These are the things that uh brought us to Great Bridge that make it special for us to live here and make this our area to call home.

Um we've been there since the beginning of Viridian Reserve started.

Now, if this development is approved, um that quiet natural space that's there that defines our neighborhood is going to be replaced with the traffic, the noise, and the density that this area was never designed to support.

That area was never it, I mean it's wetlands.

So residents who carefully chose this location for its balance of nature and neighborhood living will lose something that we can never get back.

The risks of this development go far beyond environmental loss affecting the safety of our um education and our children.

We've already talked about some of the serious um challenges that our classrooms are operating at capacity or overcapacity.

We're getting new students in our classrooms every day from the projects that have already been approved in the houses that have already gone up.

Um there are ongoing shortages of school bus drivers, which have already impacted the transportation reliability and student safety.

Our kids are waiting at bus stops for far too long, and um approving yet another neighborhood means bringing hundreds of additional students into the school system that is already stretched too thin.

Our children deserve safe transportation, manageable classrooms, and it goes on.

Um Chesapeake is growing.

We got that.

We all know it.

We're all for growth.

Um, but there should be growth, should also protect the natural resources that make our city living unique.

So destroying it is pretty sad.

I know my timer sucks.

But thank you.

And if it's not going to be approved, there's things that at least need to be changed in that.

And a 10-foot buffer is gonna take away all the trees.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In our position, but available for questions, Mr.

And Mrs.

Ashley and John Phillips.

Next speaker.

That concludes the speakers.

All right.

Is there any discussion for this?

Did you have a did you have a slip in?

Come on up, Mr.

Oswald.

Good evening, all got lost, 88 Hunter Liverpool Crest Place.

Um I don't live anywhere near this site, but as you know, I'm very active with Chesapeake Sustainability Network and trying to make sure our environment stays clean and clean here in Chesapeake.

Uh as been mentioned before, this site is basically 25 acres of forested land today.

Uh the environmental assessment identified that uh 5.6 acres of this forested land was uh sensitive wetlands.

The preliminary site plan indicates the developer will disturb.

That means they're gonna build over uh 2.9 acres of these wetlands.

The remaining 2.7 acres is actually in the three acre section that was originally shown as a conservation area, but is now designated as a park site to be dedicated to the city.

State law requires that we achieve no net loss in existing wetlands acreage and functions.

So one thing I don't see anywhere in the stipulations are explained is uh what is the city doing to mitigate the what is the developer doing to mitigate the 2.9 acres of um wetlands that are being disturbed by this plan.

Also, when the city takes these three acres for their dedicated park site, they likewise will be responsible for protecting the wetlands that are there, or again mitigating the loss of those.

So again, the city needs to, in its planning for the park, uh minimize any impact to these wetlands, minimize paving and clearing, and if they do clear any of these, make up for it.

The site plan also has four acres of conservation area along the west side of property in what is now considered a drainage ditch.

It should be noted that historically that drainage ditch, Cooper's Ditch, was the headwaters of the southern branch of the Elizabeth.

It was uh separated from the river when they built the Albemar Canal back in the 19th century.

So therefore those lands are not protected by Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area, but still uh that's important the palean buffers, and we should do all possible to retain the existing trees uh along the west side of the property and in the conservation area and in the wetlands.

The city has lost over 800 acres of trees between 2014 and 2021, and we have lost more in the past five years.

This development will probably result in about at least 16 to 18 acres of trees being cut down.

Uh ideally I would love to see all these trees stay, but again, at a minimum, we should have some stipulations in place to protect as many of the trees as we can, protect the wetlands and minimize the impact uh that's there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

No other speakers.

All right, that concludes our speakers.

Uh at this point, is there any discussion on this item?

I'd like to speak to um there, the attorney, please.

My time is up already.

It sounds if to me um the people in the community wasn't taken seriously about how they feel about the community, uh the wetlands and the safety, uh, being a former administrator for the city, I do understand that empathetic to what the citizens are saying and the overcrowding, once again been a former minister, I do understand.

Um, somewhere down the line, did anybody ever ask the citizen within the community how they feel about it, or were they taken in consideration before more development, how they feel or how the children will feel and the safety, and we do have that infrastructure going on.

It's almost as if one were in one way out in order to get in to a particular community, it sounds as if it's a it's the it's a long stretch in.

And I have noticed that communities are all being built excessively, but it is not being put on the map shit.

So did the developer take into consideration on how the community feel, or did he consider um the financial burden that would be upon uh the citizens?

Uh we did conduct two community meetings um on December 1st and December 10th.

So we had um some involved discussions with both the uh citizens of the uh Veridian Reserve and uh uh Berkshire Forest communities as well.

So we um in response to those meetings, we actually did revise the plans.

So we increased um we added about um I think it was 19 or 19,375 square feet of open area.

We revised the plan in response to some of those community inputs.

Um, but the land use plan, the road transportation plan has shown this to be a residential community for years.

The road has been planned for years as well.

So um, you know, we think our project is compatible with what was made of public record in the cities and staff plan.

We have met with the communities, we have attempted to mitigate uh the direct impacts that we can while also um you know making uh uh a quality project.

The housing sounds nice, but I don't feel that the citizens are in favor of this, and it is important to recognize how the citizens here because they're gonna be going paying attacks as well as myself, and um I'm um sounds as if they are okay with growth, but what I am hearing they like to have moderate growth growth.

And this doesn't seem if to me this moderate growth is like it's been forced upon them.

And I understand what the citizens are saying, and I do want some of the developers are saying also, but I just want to make sure the citizens that they do be treated fairly.

And uh, for some reason I don't I don't I don't feel that way right now.

And again, we believe if somebody can pull up the small uh area plan actually just to show the connectivity of um Edinburgh Parkway, because really this is a key component to really connecting that area uh in a meaningful way in consistency uh consistent with the with the city's plan um for this area.

So I mean I I again I think that this area in this type of community has been planned for this property for years.

And if you look at how the development of Edinburgh Parkway stops, yeah.

If you well, Edinburgh Parkway runs to the top of our property and then connects down through Viridian Reserve, and then there's also going to be connection connectivity down to peaceful um road at the bottom.

So um again, I I think that this will be a net asset and benefit to the citizens will allow for additional connectivity, we'll alleviate um as I was saying that Kegman intersection, which uh uh my understanding is the traffic backs up pretty um considerably on that road during uh peak rush hours.

So uh I I I believe that we've done all our community outreach.

We have met with them, we've discussed the project, we made revisions regarding the projects.

Um obviously, if any particular uh citizens don't feel that, you know, we're not we're considering their particular opinions.

We obviously have done what we can to address all the collective opinions that we have.

And uh we we believe that this project is consistent with the uh the city's plans, it will allow for uh additional first responders, uh, will improve public safety in the area.

And again, that road, that connect that connection is not going to get developed without a private developer extending that road through the project uh through through the property.

That's just not exactly that's just not how the kind of the road developed road system is developed.

We need to develop the road and then dedicate it into uh the city's uh road system.

So if this community doesn't go into that property um and that road is not part of that uh that road extension is not part of this community, then that road and that connectivity really isn't gonna happen and it won't be um perpetuating and promoting the goals that the city has put forth in their plans, the traffic plan, the comprehensive plan, the land use plan for years.

I dig to the liberty to drive there somewhat during the middle of the peak hours.

It's hard to get in and hard to get out already.

Yeah, and we believe that the our project will help help alleviate a lot of those traffic concerns.

Like I was saying, there will be connectivity to Johnstown Road to the west, and then also connectivity to Hanbury uh through the north.

Um so uh there may be traffic constraints now, but we think and I think that is consistent with the city's plan, identifying that there have been traffic concerns around here, and this is a key part of alleviating those traffic concerns.

So, to the extent that you were experiencing traffic issues, we think that this plan and project will help alleviate a lot of those.

Commissioner Sproul, can I piggyback off your question?

One minute.

Are you done, Commissioner Sproul?

Yes, I am done.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Gilman, go ahead.

Yeah, just while we were on that subject, I had a similar question.

At what point in the project will that road extension happen?

Is that something that happens first at the end?

Where does that happen?

Yeah.

So the uh extension, the reason we're coming to the edge of our projects and not making the extension is actually there is a private uh parcel that uh is between our property and the um Hanbury uh neighborhood at the north of us.

So we actually are negotiating uh acquiring that piece of property to allow for that connection.

We're in active negotiation, so we believe that we will be able to make that connection um as part of the development process, but obviously can't commit to any particular timeline.

I have a question too.

Commissioner Gilman, you are you good?

I am good on that one.

I have questions for staff, but when we get to that.

Okay.

Uh I have one for the Commissioner Malone.

Can you speak to the level of community participation in your two community events?

They were well attended.

Yeah, we actually held one at uh Kroll Residentials developed community and a model home that would be similar to the homes that would actually be built.

So the citizens were actually able to see what the kind of product um that would be going into the neighborhood.

And uh the so it was consistent and similar to uh the houses that are actually in the Viridian Reserve and the surrounding neighborhoods, particularly Viridian Reserve with some of the uh one of the uh builders actually being uh the same same builder on the two projects.

Thank you.

Commissioner Williams.

Or Taylor Go ahead.

Go ahead.

Commissioner Taylor.

So good evening.

I am in the Grantswood, Commissioner Spruell.

And the reason being I fall on Durham Road on Johnstown.

I have land on Johnstown and I'll fall.

The traffic is already horrible, and especially trying to move equipment up and down the road.

And I don't see where I mean I understand you saying that uh it uh improved the traffic, but I don't see where.

I mean, have you have you driven it at peak time?

Have you?

I have not, sir.

Well, I think you need to take in and drive it at peak time, and then you will understand where the members are not not pleased with the development.

I mean, I I drive it all the time.

So and trying to move heavy equipment and stuff up and down that road is already enough traffic.

Yeah, and again, as part of the um site plan process and the development process, there is usually uh a plan for uh moving equipment in to try to make sure that we have the designated routes identified.

But again, I uh you know if there are there are existing traffic concerns, I don't see how they're gonna get improved unless there's enhanced road improvements in the area and connectivity.

So um unless they're this project and this road connections are made, then um again I'm not sure the traffic concerns are going to be addressed otherwise, but I take point well taken, and I'll definitely make that trip out to drive that road, sir.

Okay, and just remember this this time for questions, so we'll we can discuss it, you know, the the merits of it among ourselves.

Uh Commissioner Williams.

Um, you just made a comment, if we can rewind just a moment, that there the the prop parcel that is required for the connector is not yet acquired.

Is that a yes or no?

Yes.

Okay, cool.

If that parcel is not acquired, does the does the project continue?

Or does that is that a linchpin in this project?

No, the project will continue.

So the project would continue without the actual connector in it, right?

Is that what I just heard?

Well, the there are other I you know that we're trying to acquire the property needed to make the connection on our, you know, as part of this development, but I believe there are other means because it is an important connection for the road, and there are um as part of the overall city's transportation plan, you know, if this negotiation or we weren't able to apply acquired on a private basis, there may be other means available to allow for that connection.

But at this point, you know, we are having promising conversations with the property owner, and for we believe that we'll be able to acquire that without issue.

But if you failed to get that, that would not stop this project from going forward.

No, sir.

Okay.

Um one of the one of the folks that spoke.

My second question.

One of the folks who spoke was talking about stormwater and runoff.

Um can you kind of run me through how that's how y'all are going to mitigate any of that kind of thing, any of those type of issues that the nice person brought up?

Yeah, I forgot your name.

I apologize, ma'am.

I may defer to our uh project engineer on the stormwater.

Um, but um so I don't know if Ronnie there, yeah, Rodney wanna speak to it speak to that.

Good evening, uh Planning Commission.

I'm Rodney Flores with Pinnacle Group Engineering uh business address of 804 Newtown Road.

Um with respect to the stormwater, uh we were informed uh from day one from uh development and permits, it's a sensitive area.

And uh I'm very familiar with Cooper Ditch and and as a general corridor, as a matter of fact, I designed phase four of Berkshire Forest in 1998.

So I know the hydraulics out there, the hydrology, everything is very well known.

Uh we size the uh our wet pond, typically their size for quantity for about 10 percent of the development site area.

Uh since we knew that it was a uh sensitive area, we made it 15 percent.

And we have actually done some preliminary calculations with the road crossing, uh, because basically you'll have big box culverts on the road crossing.

And so we have a pretty good level of comfort that we're we're not gonna affect anybody upstream, downstream adjacent.

So uh yeah, we we've uh we've done our initial calculations.

And uh and I know that may not fully answer your question, but I did want to uh kind of talk about the roadways because that's kind of my department too.

Um and l unless somebody's directed a question, then that's when we we want to get it addressed.

So uh as a so how did you you mentioned Cooper's Ditch and helped me out on my geography.

How does that connect in with where you're at?

Uh Cooper's Ditch runs along our western uh property line.

Did does anybody have a question about roadways?

Then I think we're good.

At this point, it's just if the commission has any question on it.

Okay, because I I think I uh if if anyone does have questions on the roadway, I think I could spread uh a little more light on that whole subject because I'm obviously a roadway civil engineer, so I'd be glad to dig into that.

It seems like it's important to the residents, and it was important to two or three of the commissioners.

Anything else on the drainage, Mr.

Williams?

No, I'm I'm good.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Uh Commissioner Squell, you know, just stay there for a minute, please.

Um Mr.

McNamara.

Am I understanding correctly that this road is happening one way or the other by way of the 2050 master transportation plan?

Uh so this road is a master transportation planned roadway.

Uh but those roadways usually occur you know either through uh development through uh private developers or through uh capital projects.

There is not a capital project at this point in time to complete this road.

I will note that uh I believe there have been several developments uh that have been approved to the south of this development that will provide some connectivity for Edinburgh Parkway to the south that will connect into Peaceful Road.

Uh but there is that that one piece that is left.

Uh Mr.

Tate certainly uh is available for help uh with this as well as I know that he has extensive knowledge of this uh of this roadway.

Sir, is that your understanding?

Uh yes, ma'am.

Uh this uh as he mentioned, this is one of the master road plan roads.

And uh one thing I did want to note.

So we're we're required to do a traffic impact analysis for anything that exceeds five residences, and so we did that on this project.

And when we met, there was probably 20, 20, 25 people at each at each civic meeting.

And so uh some of these concerns were brought up and we did discuss them.

We uh we always do that before we have a public hearing.

And um, so we we know how important Edinburgh Parkway is.

And uh if you look at it, if you look at the site plan from the north down to the south where it ties down towards wisdom, it's about 1,600 feet.

And uh if you also look closely at that, you'll see that there's not homes on both sides of that road, which is what is normally done.

Um a roadway of that size, a 60-foot ride away with 36 feet of pavement, is gonna run you uh about 1,700 a foot.

So that roadway in today's dollars is about 1.6 million dollars.

And by the time it gets built, it's probably gonna be closer to 2 million.

And I just bring that up because we are building 1,600 feet of it.

We're working on getting the last 150 feet from the property owner.

And and I'm not gonna lie to you and say we have 100 percent guarantee it.

We we we're pretty sure we are going to get it.

But um that roadway is important to the city overall, not just Veridian, Berkshire or Great Bridge.

It's uh it's important because it's a master road plan road.

And getting 1,600 feet out of out of 1,750, that's uh that's all we can legally do today.

And uh you it you gotta believe that last 150 feet is gonna happen, and and we're we're fitting the bill for two million of it.

So I'm just being straight and honest with everybody, and everybody up here understands how how these roads get built.

And uh we're doing the right thing.

We're meeting with the uh off-site owner, we're doing everything we possibly can to uh make this work.

Uh but as the attorney said, you know, we we did do a traffic study, and and even without that connection, we meet all the levels of service.

But I understand there is people that live out there that you know they've got concerns, and that's why I'm trying to take the extra minute or two to explain that we're really trying to solve all the concerns.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Um Commissioner Gillman, I think you had questions.

Uh does anybody else have have questions?

I do have one question for you, Mr.

Rosai, which is just I want to make sure with the stipulations.

I heard during your presentation that no CO was going to be before the Southeastern was completed.

I don't know where they're at in the phase with that, but I did know there is an exception.

Yeah, and two of them will be, right?

Prior to that.

And then the other thing is, but there's also or July 1st correct of next year, which for us is only less than, you know, less than a year and a half away.

So what what is the intent of what you said versus what is actually in the proffer?

Would you think I was just kind of trying to get it in three minutes and I uh misspoke on that one.

But yeah, the the proffer is the uh conditional use permits or the uh certificates of occupancy are tied to the uh completion of the Southeastern expansion or the outside date of uh July 1st, 2027.

We do understand that the goal is to have the expansion completed in the school year of 26-27.

So we anticipate that the um school will be completed before that outside date and I there will be two model homes that will be uh issued certificates of occupancy just to allow for um you know potential purchasers to see the homes.

So thank you for the clarification.

Thank you.

Um I think we're done.

Uh Commissioner Gilman uh you had some questions for staff.

I do.

There was an engineering report in there with comments back from October of 2025.

I'm not sure who from staff can answer this but it talked about the proposed development as being uh within a sensitive drainage area and we have heard several citizens comments about drainage we received some via email on on drainage it said that there is an extensive offsite draining analysis and improvements which may be required and I was just wondering if we could somebody could speak to what that might entail oh good Mr.

Tate I've got several questions for you so you are perfect yes ma'am what what does that mean?

What is an extensive offsite drainage analysis and what improvements could we expect maybe to come out of that to address the cost the citizen concerns.

Okay sensitive drainage analysis is kind of a higher standard of drainage analysis that we developed after um 2016 when there was a lot of storms that resulted in flooding throughout the city so based on that very big event we identified areas that were prone to flooding now keep in mind that event was you know something that exceeded anything that was projected for even a hundred year storm but we use that as the baseline to say which areas of the city need higher consideration in any areas in that city you don't do more of a routine um drainage analysis which is just restrict your flow to pre-developed flows that was kind of old style and that generally worked if you had you know good drainage systems but in the case of some of the areas of the city you have ditches that you know haven't been maintained and they have grown up and natural and you know maybe some of the trees at Rogard liked or now in the in the ditches and so because those systems don't function quite as well we go to a higher standard where they not only consider what was the pre-developed flow, but they look at the total quantity of runoff which increases and they have to analyze that over a period of time so you know not just during the peak part of the storm what happens but as water continues to run off for maybe a 24 hour period does the height of the water increase or does the duration of any flooding increase.

So I will tell you just I'm probably saying things that doesn't make a lot of difference to you but I will say the higher standard is such a higher standard that not all engineers can perform the analysis.

They will have to get specialists that use our models to do the programming.

So it's something that people don't look forward to doing but it gives us a higher level of confidence that it won't have an impact on systems that are challenged.

Thank you.

Any follow-up before I move to the next question go right ahead um Mr.

Tate one question about the levels of service for this because I saw where the peak hours in the evening before this project it was a level E and it improves to a D with this project can you just explain that okay so we look at the peak hour traffic volumes and the existing conditions the existing plus whatever development is been approved in the area that is column two and then column three is all the other developments that were previously considered plus theirs and when they do that they look at the existing systems and for this project both the AM and the PM was a level of service D, which is acceptable for residential, then they took the existing traffic condition of whatever the timing of the traffic signal was and they applied the additional traffic that would come from other areas, other um projects that were being developed and there were a couple of significant ones on both battlefield and then there's some along Edinburgh Parkway that Jimmy had mentioned that was going to provide the connectivity on Edinburgh Parkway.

But they applied the traffic to the existing timing of the signals.

And when they added the traffic to their development, they're allowed to reanalyze and propose modifications to the traffic timing, in which case it got back down to a D.

Now, a D and an E sounds like you know a giant chasm between them, but a D and an E is a range.

So if you're at the upper end of a D, then just a little bit of adjustment can put you into the E, and conversely, a little bit of signal timing improvement can put you into a D.

So I would suspect that they're kind of in a high end of a D, which meets the criteria, and that's why you see that teetering back and forth between the D and the E.

Okay.

Any follow-up on that one from anyone?

Given nowadays reporting, with the time, do you guys adjust the time to see what will happen?

Or is it just speculation?

Well, we have some transportation software that utilize the traffic, and they're able to simulate what will occur with that traffic.

So it's it's not unique for Chesapeake.

These are standardized programs that are used throughout the country, and they're used to set the timing of signals.

And every time there is an adjustment and a significant adjustment in traffic volume in the direction it approaches the signal, the timing can be modified to optimize the signal and minimize the delay.

So, you know, if your point is it's theoretical, yes, but with traffic, it's a pretty good theoretical estimate of what will occur.

When the time wasn't done.

Without speculation, was that done?

Did you guys adjust the time, then check the data?

Yes.

So the speculation comes with we project the traffic, we're fairly confident in how much traffic you generate with a certain number of homes.

A little bit more speculation, it's a little bit of an art form to estimate which direction people flow.

And one of the things that was discussed significantly up here is you know, what's the advantage to the transportation system?

This is the last gap between Hanbury Road all the way down to Hillcrest Parkway.

And they've indicated we're going to take the last big piece and leave like 75 or 80 feet, and then you know, worst case, well, what happens if they can't buy that?

And what I would say here is I cannot tell you that council will approve a project, but a 75 or 80-foot piece project is a low cost.

And past we've built significant roads by closing gaps for roads that were the gaps were left by development.

So for those of you who are um been around a while, Centerville Turnpike now goes from Centerville Turnpike to Battlefield Boulevard on a road called Etheridge Manor Boulevard and Hanbury Road.

Well, just about all that was built in pieces, and there was just a couple of little gaps that the city came in and closed.

One was a bridge, and one was the piece right there that over that went over the expressway.

So you know, the um developer, when he points out he's building a l a significant piece of the last component of that roadway segment.

That is a significant contribution because some roadways are speculative and will they bear value, but that particular roadway, all the other pieces from Hillcrest to Hanberry are in place.

If that one piece is connected, it will handle local traffic and give them an easy way to go north-south between schools and commerce.

And it also, and you know, we have a new city manager, and he's recognized the importance of connectivity of pedestrians and other forms of transportation, and this will be more of a local type street where this will compete, this will complete a section that will be available for people in the area.

You know, they can bike down to Edinburgh and they can go north to the schools.

So it is an important stretch, and I I think as a whole, you will see an improvement in traffic in the area.

Forty-four new houses, but the connection of several different alternative routes is a net improvement.

Thank you.

I just wanted to say to Mr.

Tate, um, recognizing your historical data, and the fact that you have done this so many times, even though this may be speculative, you your the analysis, the final analysis has been proven already.

So this is just another example where you've seen it done in the past and we see it can be done in the future.

Yes.

So what I would say to that is there is speculation, like Mr.

Spool indicated, and that speculation is a factor given how close of a call something is.

And sometimes it's just barely a little bit of an improvement.

In this case, it's a giant improvement for a little hit as opposed to speculating on something that could be is it a little bit better or a little bit worse?

Yes, ma'am.

I have one final question, Mr.

Tate.

Yes, ma'am.

Um there were customer, or excuse me, there were citizen comments about um Kegman and how bad it backs up and there's no light at the intersection or anything there.

Are there plans for a light at that intersection?

Yes, there's a preliminary concept plan that um public works has developed, and it involves actually relocating the intersection and potentially providing a signal.

And obviously, funds for capital improvement projects are competitive.

That one's in the unfunded list.

And I'm guessing one of the reasons why it hadn't been pushed up is there's kind of some circuitous alternatives for if Kegman is backed up, you can kind of weave through Berkshire and get to Hanbury Road.

With this project, you won't make Kegman any worse, but by making those connections, you will provide some relief.

Now that doesn't mean Kegman won't day one day need to be improved.

But what I would say is this project won't trigger an impact there.

It would probably have a slight improvement because people who are in Viridian who say, my only choice is to go out at Kegman will now be able to go north on um Edinburgh, make a right turn on Hanbury and come out to that signal there, and there's two lanes going east-west on Hanbury Road there, and so that signal can better accommodate traffic in that direction than it can coming out at Kegman and then going north, where it's one lane in each direction.

Thank you.

Do we have any other questions?

All right.

Discussion.

They're actually shown on the site plan in your staff report, um, but they're hard to see on the plan on the screen.

Um, but a large portion of it is where the roadway is, and then um there's several little over two, two and a half acres there within the uh future park site.

And can we see what part of that is actually going to be disturbed?

Uh the majority will be disturbed for the road.

So uh it's about, as Mr.

Ross pointed out, it's about six acres.

It's about 5.7 acres of uh non-tidal wetlands.

So at least three acres will be or two and a half acres will be preserved within the open space area that is identified as the uh as the park site, the future park site.

Um the remainder of that would potentially be um impacted by again the roadway that's going to be that future connection that's going to go right there.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions?

Any discussion?

Any further discussion?

Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, sir.

This road is going to happen.

It's going to happen at some point.

And I think the burden, unfortunately, falls on the home buyer to see what is going to happen to these roads, to these to your neighborhoods when you purchase.

And that's a tough one.

Um the heartburn that I have with supporting this tonight is the 120 percent overcrowding at Southeastern Elementary.

Um that's going to happen after the addition.

Is that correct?

Mr.

McNamara, after the expansion, July 1st, 2027, we will remain above or near 120 percent of capacity at Southeastern Elementary.

That is what the school report uh states.

And that's 43 homes with an estimate of only 20 additional students.

You know, 43 homes isn't a whole lot.

43 here, 43 there.

It's a tough one.

It's a tough one because this connection is really important for our our city and our area.

It's part of our 2050 plan.

But at some point I just think we've got to say our kids deserve better.

And I won't be supporting it tonight.

Mr.

Chairman.

Commissioner Williams.

Can I can the the folks that are in the back?

Could I could I just ask, in you all, which schools do your children go to?

Southeastern.

How many folks, how many let me state this right way?

In your classrooms that your children are in today, on average, how many how many students are in each one of those classes?

Is that similar for you, ma'am?

And you you as well?

Oh.

Okay.

All right.

Well, th thank you.

I appreciate it.

So I I will make a comment also.

When we look at the levels of service in within the schools, remember that we we really don't have an accurate count.

Other words, when when this gets approved and we're looking at it and it drops off, it doesn't get counted in the level of service, right?

Until it becomes an active project.

Is that right, Mr.

McNamara?

Yes, sir.

Once a rezoning is approved, unless there's an approved site plan, those numbers will not count in the uh anticipated numbers.

Okay.

So I mean, I I I think there's concern when you are looking at the levels of service for for the kids.

Um then again, and and I looked at it just the way that that, you know, I kind of look at I I remember the day where we had roads that didn't really connect through, and you know, you build those roads and they do connect through.

And when I look at it and I see there's this road and it's got the same name here, but it's not connected, I envision that it's going to be connected eventually.

Um again, it's part of the master transportation plan, um, which makes it a very hard call.

But um and then again, does it meet the comprehensive plan?

Um and so, you know, I think that's the one thing that staff really comes in and does, and and like I said, you can always come up with a reason against it and a reason for it.

Um it's a tough one.

But but I do think that in from my view uh that it does meet the comprehensive plan that we measure it up against and that it does meet the master transportation plan.

So that would be my thoughts.

I I have a question.

And this is for Commissioner Segueo said that it was 120 percent overloading.

But the staff report says when you include everything that's in the works.

It's 146.8 percent.

Okay.

So I believe what we're referring to is once the addition is completed, there's a subnote on the school report that states that once the addition is completed, it is anticipated that the uh the enrollment numbers will be closer to around 120 percent.

Does that include all of the other projects that are planned that would impact that school?

That includes the uh the current enrollment plus the projects that are have approved site plans that are counted towards it.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

Commissioner Howard.

In the uh comprehensive plan on page uh 133.

It talks about a green space survey.

And it says that the respondents were asked to select up the three images that best represent the green or open space that they are most interested in protecting or creating in the city.

And then there's three different images down at the bottom.

Number two on page 133 of the comp plan shows the 64 and a half percent of a residents wanted to preserve this this kind of a green space right here.

And as I drove over to Viridian last week, and I looked at where our sign is advertising this hearing tonight, it looks a whole lot like this.

Like this is something that's supposed to be preserved.

I read the whole staff report, and I'm cognizant of all the different citations in there showing how this uh conforms to the comprehensive plan, but it also is specifically uh contrary to the uh to the comprehensive plan in this uh element right here.

And so I will not be supporting this as well.

Thank you.

One last thing, once again, um, being a former administrator.

For seeability, we build them too small already.

So, because I I've been in this a long time before I retired, and um, we look at it here and now, but for stability is going to show us that we are billing them too small, and I can't support this.

All right.

Any uh further discussion?

If not, then a motion would be in order.

Move disapproval.

Uh second.

Mr.

Tedder, do we have to add anything to the I believe based on the discussion?

What the commission has considered before is issues with loss of open space, wetlands, possibly environmentally sensitive areas, school overcrowding has been another issue.

The discussion as a whole, I believe, would support those as the basis for the motion to deny, which would be a proper basis for the motion.

All right.

So, Commissioner Howard, based on the discussion, is that your motion?

Yes.

Okay.

And second.

All right.

So we have a motion by Commissioner Howard and a second by Commissioner Sproul to deny.

Um PLN dash REZ-2025-009.

Remember that if you are voting in favor, you are voting in favor of denial, uh, not in support of the project.

Um that being said, prepare to vote.

Please vote.

And Mr.

Boswick, please record the vote.

By a vote of seven to two, the motion carries.

All right.

That will conclude our regular agenda.

Uh Mr.

McNamara, do you have any items to bring up at this time?

No, sir.

The cancellation of the February 25th, 2026 meeting is now being considered due to uh there being no business.

Do the commissioners have any objection to counseling the meeting?

Hearing no objections, the February 25th, 2026 meeting is canceled by unanimous consent.

Is there any unfinished finished or new business to be brought up for the good of the Commission?

If there is no further business to consider, the meeting stands adjourned at 827 p.m.