Alright, here we go.

The planning commission pre-meeting for July 8th, 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 two applications are for continuance or withdrawal.

Mr.

Boswick, could you please uh provide the commission with an overview of the applications?

Yes, the applications for continuance.

We have two of them PLN-REZ-2025-020, Carleton Park with the applicant requesting an indefinite continuance, and PLN-USC-2025-009.

Chesapeake Waterfront Concrete with the applicant requesting a 60 day continuance to the September 15, 2026 meeting.

Thank you.

Do any commissioners have any comments or questions regarding these items?

Without any objection, these items will be placed on the continuance withdrawal portion of the agenda.

Next, we will review the remaining items and determine placement on either the consent or regular agenda.

The first item is item number one, Mears Creek.

Mr.

Bell, do you have any updates regarding this application?

Good evening, commissioners.

Staff have no updates on the uh staff report itself.

We did receive five comment forms in opposition.

Reasons cited were a desire to keep the woods behind their homes and concerns of lowering property values due to smaller lots.

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, the next item is item number four, Sam Circle Communication Tower.

Ms.

Uton, do you have any updates regarding this application?

Good evening, commissioners.

There are no updates to the staff report at this time.

We did receive one inquiry on the application and one comment form in opposition noting concerns of parking.

Thank you.

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 to placing this item on the consent agenda?

All right.

Next items are items number five and number six on data centers.

Miss Neal, do you have any updates regarding this application?

Good evening, commissioners.

I have no updates.

Uh we have received 140 emails in opposition.

Uh the vast majority oppose data center development altogether.

Many citing concerns related to significant water and electricity consumption, noise and vibration concerns, quality of life concerns, environmental impacts, impact on property values, and few permanent jobs being created.

We received letters from Chesapeake Environmental Improvement Council, the Alliance, and the Agricultural Advisory Commission, and others supporting the city's efforts to establish clear, predictable standards for responsible development while also offering recommendations to strengthen the documents.

Several of those noted that they are opposed to data centers as a whole and support increased regulation.

Uh two phone calls with general questions, and we do have a special presentation for you for data centers tonight.

Are there any conflicts with this application?

Do any commissioners have any questions for staff?

I will just a couple of things for legal purposes.

Just to cover this, and we'll cover this again in the regular meeting, but I know one of the big comments were people who oppose data centers altogether.

Mr.

Tedder, could you just address about the prohibiting data centers altogether type issue?

Yes, sir, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh couple of points on that.

Virginia law allows data centers.

In other words, the state code does not establish a ban on this use, and therefore localities, which would include Chesapeake, are not allowed to ban the use entirely.

We do not have that authority.

There is clear case law.

There are clear attorney general's opinions that say we do not have that authority, and that's why staff is presenting the ordinance tonight to make sure that we have appropriate regulations of the use to ensure that applications can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, impacts are mitigated, that it's appropriate for the area and all that that goes into conditional uses.

Thank you.

Um, and just is there any uh any discussion on this?

Alright, we'll go ahead and put this on the regular agenda.

The other thing to note was you should have gotten the list of staff that will be available uh for this evening.

Um you might want to add on Chief Matthews from the Chesapeake Fire Department, the fire marshal will be here tonight, as well as uh Mr.

David Jurgens, who is the director of public utilities for the city of Chesapeake.

He will also be here to answer questions that may be on.

So if you want to add those to your list, know that they're available.

Alright, at this time, the consent agenda is going to consist of items one and four, and the regular agenda will consist of items five and six.

The next order of business is the planning commission committee reports all business.

Is there anything to report from these committees?

All right, next we have upcoming items.

Summary of new public hearing applications received.

Mr.

Boswick.

Yes, this month's summary of new applications in the pipeline includes one rezoning and three conditional use permits.

Thank you.

Any initiated text amendments.

We do have three new initiated text amendments, all in response to new laws passed by the General Assembly.

Uh, one is code and comprehensive plan updates to our solar facility regulations and to allow on-site battery energy storage systems.

Uh one is for general code updates covering a variety of topics, and then the last one is a code update to judicial review of Board of Zoning Appeals decisions.

Thank you.

Next, we have a special presentation by Mr.

McNamara on data centers.

Mr.

McNamara.

Alright, so good evening, everyone.

Last year, the city received a zoning request for a piece of property for the purpose of constructing a data center.

The public hearing for that item resulted in hours of discussion and ultimately the rezoning was denied shortly thereafter in the fall of 2025 at a city council retreat.

We again discussed the benefits and challenges of data centers.

On January 13th of this year, City Council adopted initiating resolution directing staff to begin work on amending the zoning ordinance to address data centers.

Our zoning ordinance uses standard industrial code classification codes to classify uses data centers as they exist today were not necessarily contemplated in 1987 when the manual was developed.

The existing code that this falls under is 7374, which is considered computer processing and data preparation and processing services.

This was the most similar to most similar to an office environment or a call center, not necessarily the data centers that we see today.

The SIT code is a permitted use in business, industrial, and office zoning districts, meaning that this use is a by-right use without the need for city council approval.

I'll say it again, without city council approval.

They can submit site plan today and they can go in those districts.

As well.

When looking at the properties with this zoning classification, that means that there are over 27,000 residentially zoned parcels that lie within 500 feet of a property that permits a data center by right, and there is no mitigation that can be required above and beyond what is required by the zoning orders for developing these parcels.

What's being proposed today as part of this text amendment and this policy is a removal of these buy right uses from what you see on the left to what you see on the right.

And that means that the only place that these would be permitted by right is in the Coastal Virginia Commerce Park.

Everywhere else would require a conditional use permit.

So we move from over 27,000 residentially zoned parcels that are at risk right now of by right development down to zero.

So again, reiterating this, what's being proposed to you today is that this would be a conditional use, data centers would be a conditional use in the M1 and M2 industrial districts and the fencers overlay, which means that every data center that was proposed in these districts would require a plan a public hearing before both planning commission and city council.

And again, the buy right development in the Coastal Virginia Commerce Park, as that's an industrial PUD, which has already addressed data centers and set standards for development within those areas.

And we'll note that, in particular, in the 1500 acres that has been rezoned, there is absolutely no residential in that immediate vicinity.

So a lot of the impacts that would be associated with data centers would not necessarily be felt in those areas.

So I'll talk briefly about our approach to this topic because there's a lot of information.

So we took a very extensive approach.

We knew it was absolutely critical to engage with stakeholders who are both pro and data and anti-data centers.

We knew that we had to engage with tangible industries like Dominion Energy and Virginia Natural Gas.

We knew that we had to engage with city departments to make sure their concerns were addressed.

We also knew that the state code is constantly changing and that we need to incorporate the latest changes as a result of legislation.

We did all this and we put all this together and we began our work.

So when looking for expert localities, we didn't have to go far.

In February of this year, we lit up a van full of city departments planning commissioner and headed up and met with Prince William County.

We were able to sit down with a variety of experts on staff and discuss the nuts and bolts of their regulations.

We heard what they did well.

We heard what needed to make where they needed to make changes and lessons learned.

We were able to go on a site tour and we saw both newer and older model data centers.

We saw some under construction, we saw some single and some multi-story.

So we saw a variety of of these uh data centers on our visit, and we saw lots of substations.

We saw buildings that looked like office buildings.

We stopped at one particular data center and got out to listen to the noise generated by the data center.

This one was less than 200 feet away from the adjacent residential uses.

Try as we did, we didn't hear any noise specifically at this data center.

At one point, I asked if the site was even actually operational at this point.

From an audible noise perspective, no noise was observable.

That being said, we know that much of the noises generated from these facilities is a sound that you can feel but not hear.

So we know that we had to address this as part of our ordinance.

We also stopped with an actual another neighborhood for a separate facility where the county has received several complaints.

This facility is located about 500 feet away from residences.

As I observed from the right-of-way, the slightest sound of what sounded like an HVAC unit could be heard in the very far distance, but it's much lower than any ambient noise that was being detected by any cars going by in the street or HVAC units from any neighbors' homes.

We'll talk about noise regulations as we get into the amendment itself.

So I'd like to shift gears now and talk about our stakeholder committee.

Having a balanced conversation is critical to policy development.

We wanted to hear it form a committee that would vet a variety of issues related to data centers.

We selected citizens who were concerned about the previous data center application.

We had Planning commission members, we had representatives from Dominion Energy, the Chesapeake Alliance, and the South Side Network Authority.

This committee met several times and has provided exceptional input for the consideration of this, what's being proposed before you tonight.

Our internal stakeholder committee is extensive and has provided great input from the operational and administrative perspective.

Folks like FIRE have received extensive information from other localities and use that to uh provide what's before you tonight for regulations.

Localities across the state have adopted regulations over the past couple years, and we've extensively re extensively reviewed each one of these ordinances for information that would be helpful for our specific circumstances.

While not all new state legislation applies directly to the city's regulation and data centers, we have reviewed all legislation to ensure that our proposed ordinance is consistent with all those changes.

After all these reviews, several major themes did arise, and each of these themes was vetted through our stakeholder committee.

Now, one thing I'll say is what's being considered tonight is two components.

The first component is a text amendment to the zoning ordinance, and this establishes things like requirement that are requirements like max or minimum setbacks, maximum height, application submission materials, noise restrictions, fire safety, all these different uh components are included in the ordinance, and these are requirements that these cannot be modified.

The other component is a comprehensive plan policy similar to what we have with the solar energy policy.

And this provides suggested policies and standards related to siting, location, site design, landscaping things that depending on the site may require some flexibility as opposed to setbacks and height and some of those which we wanted set as standards.

This also allows flexibility and allows for newer advancements and broader interpretation, which will become important as we talk about technology moving forward.

So perhaps one of the largest things that we heard was concerns about noise, and we we talked earlier about noise you can hear and noise you can feel.

Our zoning ordinance today, or should say our city co our city code today addresses uh noise that you can hear.

So this DBA standard, which is the higher frequency and audible uh that that that uh the police are in charge of enforcing.

But DBCs are not addressed within the city code as occurred as it's currently constructed.

So this ordinance addresses DBCs, that lower rumble sound that you usually get with the data centers.

Uh localities, in particular, Prince William in Northern Virginia have done extensive research and extensive outreach with uh with stakeholders, with professionals to generate an ordinance to help out with this uh with this DBC range.

And the standards that they have adopted as part of theirs are what's being proposed tonight, the daytime rating of D 73 DBCs and a nighttime rating of 68 DBCs.

Uh also requires the ordinance also requires that the study conforms to established standards.

Uh, and this would result in a three-layer protection.

So establishing pre-construction levels, uh projecting sound levels and recommending sound mitigation as part of the the application process, and then most importantly, post-construction study to determine compliance to ensure that what they have produced what they have produced in advance that they are able to meet those standards after construction.

Now, when we look at the policy, this states that you know, due to potential noise, that uh certain uh locate certain uses should be appropriately separated and buffered from incompatible land uses, and we're talking about these data centers.

They should have appropriate buffering uh from these incompatible land uses, and that noise generating features like generators, cooling towers, uh, should be oriented away from those incompatible uses.

And again, as this is a conditional use permit required for these data centers, that allows you to assess this on a case-by-case basis to determine where the best location for those noise generated uses would be.

Another topic of discussion is water usage, and and there's very clear standards established as part of this ordinance.

First and foremost, that the water and wastewater system impact analysis is required.

So up front, we need to know what type of water usage are we anticipating from these facilities.

How are they going to be handling it?

These also are required to be served by a public water system, and that private groundwater systems are prohibited.

So they will be reliant upon the the city for its water.

And in this case, this addresses a lot of the concerns about groundwater impacts and such because we're no longer, we will not allow these these uses to connect to wells that would impact the groundwater.

There also has to be sufficient water for fire suppression and an assessment of impact on ground and surface water resources.

But as we said, when you're looking at these facilities that are not connecting into groundwater, the impact is truly negligible after that fact.

Now, the policy allows some flexibility.

Some of the latest technology right now is to use a closed loop liquid cooling system or similar method to reduce water usage.

And that's the best out there right now, but we anticipate that there will be future improvements likely, and that you know, closed loop will either improve to include other components or or such that will improve efficiency.

So the policy, you know, it certainly establishes a baseline of this is what's available right now, but also allows for similar methods that that may be more effective in the future.

And then we ask for employing water conservation methods such as rainwater harvesting and water recycling systems where appropriate, in particular, uh to help out with some of the robust landscape buffers that would be required as part of this as well.

Electricity is another very important component, and uh I I know Alyssa addressed this earlier with with some updates, but there's another update I believe that has been sent out to you from me as a memo that addressed some of the electrical questions that Dominion was able to get back to me today.

Uh, in this case, uh, Dominion has uh discussed some of the uh the rates that uh some of the rate increases that others are seeing when it relates to some local governments are seeing some pretty significant rate increases at this time, and uh of course there's the residential rate increases, and they've confirmed that neither of these are related to the data center at this point in time, but are in general related specifically to the cost for production of electricity given the methods that are being used to produce that electricity.

Now, one of the bigger questions that's out there is well, how do we ensure that data centers are paying their own way to make sure that we are they are paying for the infrastructure that's in place?

Earlier this year uh the uh the SEC uh approved uh a new rate class uh classification for data centers, which is called the GS5 rate, and this is a much higher rate than what other users are paying, and this is to make sure to ensure that they are continuing to pay their own way as it comes to electricity.

But from our perspective, when we you know looking at things that we can control from our ordinance and our policy, number one, uh we do require a letter from an electric utility provider outlining the existing or planned infrastructure to serve that proposed data center.

So are they using the existing transmission lines?

Do they need upgrades to those transmission lines?

Do they need a substation upgrade?

Does the existing substation provide sufficient uh capacity to serve that?

We'll have that up front so that when we're making these decisions, we can be cognizant of what's gonna be required to serve it.

We also need estimates of the energy usage and confirmation that it can be adequately served.

And then also uh there will be generators on these sites, usually as a backup source.

Uh, but we put made it very clear in the ordinance that generators cannot be used as the primary source of power, so that we make sure that we we keep the noise and the emissions down on those.

From a policy perspective, we state that these should be sited within a half mile of existing electrical transmission corridors.

And the reason that we do this is that we think that that will limit the impact of additional infrastructure that would be necessary to support these.

But in the case in this case, you know, there may be instances where uh you know a data center could could provide information to show you know there is going to be no existing, the no additional infrastructure necessary to support this, so somewhere outside of the half mile might be appropriate.

But as a general guideline, we establish that half mile as the preference to make sure that we're keeping them within those existing corridors.

When we talk about setbacks in height, uh minimum setback of 100 feet from a resid residentially or agriculturally zoned property line.

So that basically establishes a hundred foot buffer, and then beyond that, a minimum setback of 500 feet from existing residential structures.

So this is, you know, above and beyond the 100-foot setback, but also establishes a minimum setback of 500 feet.

Now, in the case of a conditional use permit, if it was provided, you know, that that you know we look at this and there's uh noise impacts or some type of visual impact, and the 500 feet is not appropriate.

At any point in time, we could find that this is you know not consistent with the standards that are set, and we could recommend denial of that application.

So again, this is a minimum setback of 500 feet, and this is consistent with some of the standards that have been established for impact with some of the state regulations as well.

We talk about height, height is going to be governed by the existing zoning district, and city council may approve a height exception up to 95 feet with a conditional use permit if there are no adjacent properties that are zoned or used for residential purposes.

But again, this requires a conditional use permit.

So all of this would be vetted to see what type of impacts would be there.

Now the policy states that it should be appropriately separated and buffered from incompatible land uses and designed in a manner that ensures compatibility with the character of surrounding uses.

And this is really important.

This is really where we get to the case-by-case basis because no properties are the same, and the impact and what's around those properties are not the same.

So when we're talking about making sure that it's appropriately separated and buffered, really the use permit is our best tool to assess what those impacts would be and to make sure that we're getting the best product.

From a site design and landscaping standpoint, we have many required components, so landscape plan required, buffer standards are established that include the plant materials, a view shed analysis would be required to show what people are going to see, and from what vantage point, and then a lighting plan would be required to make sure that you know we're having no impact from a lighting standpoint.

From policy perspective, we recommend keeping the 50% open space for sites within the Fentress Airfield Overlay District.

We've we also make recommendations related to fencing about the metal picket system being preferred, not allowing the barbed wire or uh or chain link.

Uh lighting should comply with dark sky principles, so making sure that we direct all light downward, landscaping standards established, and then primary elevation standards to avoid these long unarticulated wall planes.

So those are established to give us some flexibility and building design.

These are necessary components of these data centers.

The ordinance states that you know the sound is included in the sound modeling study, so you will get information up front to what the impact of these generators would be.

They cannot be used as the primary source of electricity.

You must meet or exceed EPA standards for Tier 4 emission standards, and then testing is limited between nine and five on weekdays, and this can be only one hour per week.

It's not one hour per generator, it's one hour per week in which these generators can be tested.

And from a policy standpoint, again, we talked about this earlier, but you know, noise generating features should be oriented away from non-compatible uses and making sure that we're placing them in the right location to minimize any type of impact.

Fire and lay safety.

We require an emergency response plan.

Uh we require that the system design documentation demonstrating a reliable water supply is available.

Buildings must be accessible to fire apparatus and automatic sprinklers are required.

And then we address insurance requirements of the five million per occurrence and then the 10 million per combined uh limited event for the policy itself.

Other components of the policy include the ordinance include state required higher energy use facility analysis.

So this is outlined in the state code what we can require with this, but that has been incorporated, and then requirements for data centers, containing battery energy storage systems.

Uh you know, we reference back to our existing requirements for battery to energy storage systems so that we're addressing those concerns as well.

Other policy recommendations, uh, avoid disturbing habitat areas and corridors connecting habitat areas.

Identification of heat island impacts and potential mitigation for that.

The public outreach component is uh really important as well, and we've established standards here that are recommended as part of the policy that the applicant should conduct at least two neighborhood engagement meetings prior to being scheduled for public hearing, uh that adjacent property owners within a half mile boundary of the proposed development should be notified, and a summary of the meetings should be provided for banning commission and city council's consideration.

We also discourage the use of non-disclosure documents to ensure that we're that applicants are being fully transparent with uh who is going to be operating these data centers.

Uh construction mitigation for rural roadways.

This is certainly lessons learned from solar facilities and such.

So we adopt those standards to ensure that uh the roads come that are repaired on an ongoing basis that they can continue to maintain, uh, and then at the end of construction that these are uh re restored to the pre-construction status.

And then uh notification for change of ownership within 30 days.

So if there's a data center that's changing ownership, they have to provide notification within 30 days so that we're aware of who's operating uh the data center itself.

So I want to close with a couple main points, and I think this is really important because you know there's been a lot of of conversation about uh what this text amendment is and what it's not.

I want to make it very clear that maintaining the status quo allows for data center development adjacent to 27,000 residential properties with no public hearing or mitigation requirements.

So if we do nothing, this is the status quo, this is what's being that's this is what what folks can do right now.

A submission of a site plan, and they're off and running.

Uh the proposal requires a conditional use permit and a public hearing for data centers in the proposed zoning districts and overlays, with the exception of the Coastal Virginia Commerce Park, but everywhere else there is a conditional use permit that is required, and that means that there's a public hearing, and we can assess these on a case-by-case basis.

As uh Ben stated earlier, state law does not permit for an outright ban or a moratorium on this use.

So I know there's been a lot of conversation about you know, let's let's just ban these outright.

We do not have the ability to ban these outright.

All we can do is establish standards for where they should occur and how they should occur, and that's what's being proposed within this ordinance.

It establishes clear requirements and standards for appropriate siting and identification of uh mitigation, uh, potential impacts, and it's consistent with comp plan policy Econ 11, which states that we should study and make recommendations on potential siting criteria and sample stipulations for data centers.

We feel like that this answers the call on this, and then my last slide uh for everyone.

Juan, direct your attention to the screen.

Uh, this is probably not the best exhibit, but I wanted to put this up here.

What you're looking at here is the uh intersection of Centerville Turnpike and Etherage Manor Boulevard.

Uh to the south, you'll see the color white, which is an agriculturally zoned property.

This is the property where the uh the original data center came in last year.

The reason that it required a public hearing was because it was zoned for agricultural uses and they had to rezone the property to allow for the data center.

The property on the other side of Etherage Manor Boulevard is still vacant and is zone B1.

If a data center were to come into that property today, there would be no requirement for a public hearing.

They could submit a site plan today, and we would begin review, and uh we would we would have no uh no way to require additional mitigation above and beyond what the zoning ordinance requires.

So, with that being said, my presentation concludes, and we'd be glad to answer any questions that you do have.

So, before we go, because I know there'll be a lot of talk when we get into the actual meeting as well, but I know one of the the things you brought forward, and I just want to make sure the commission understands this because someone may not know, was you brought up the coastal Virginia Commerce Park as being one of the locations.

Could you just tell everybody exactly where that is and what that is?

So everybody's clear on that one.

Yeah, be glad to.

So several years back, we rezoned a, I believe it's a 1200 portion, I think it's a fifteen hundred portion here, but twelve hundred acre portion of property that's located to the eastern side of uh highway seventeen along the North Carolina border.

Uh, this was identified as a unique economic development opportunity by the previous prompt comprehensive plan, and that property was zoned for an industrial PUD.

Uh, and that PUD document addressed uh data centers as a permitted by right use at the time, but there are a lot of requirements within that PUD document that address many of the concerns that that this ordinance is addressing for other areas that are not in play.

All right.

Um discussion at this particular time.

Um, one other thing, just for my clarification.

I know we talked a whole lot about generators and about testing and some things like that, and we talked about battery storage units and and things like that.

Um, how are these generators generally powered?

Is there any environmental concern?

With we're talking about data centers, but but talking with that, just curious if any of that's addressed.

Yeah, so we there's a I believe it's tier four standards for the generators that apply that that from the that have been established by the environmental protection agency.

Uh and you know, generators can be powered by usually two different sources.

Uh, you'll have diesel generators, and then you'll have some that are uh powered by natural gas.

Um so you know, for for us, the the the emission standards are the most important component of that.

So we we hankered into the tier four EPA standards as the uh as the standard for uh what we recommend for the for data centers.

Okay, I just know that was a quick thing we kind of talked about with the testing, but that really not anything's really specified out in this particular.

All right, at this time, um any discussion.

All right.

Uh if not, and there's no further business to consider this time, this meeting stands adjourned at six thirty-three p.m.

The speaker cards are available in the table outside.

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

Tonight's planning commission meeting.

The Planning Commission public hearing for July eighth, twenty twenty six 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 Williams will lead the pledge of allegiance, and the invocation will follow and will be offered by Commissioner Sproul.

Yes, we're present, and I'm here today.

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

Mr.

Boswick, please call the roll.

Present.

Commissioner Gilman.

Present.

Commissioner Halliard.

Present.

Commissioner Malone.

Here.

Commissioner Squelia.

Here.

Commissioner Sprule.

Here.

Commissioner Taylor.

Present.

Commissioner Williams.

Present.

Chairman Hackworth.

Present.

The minutes for the July, or excuse me, the June tenth, twenty twenty-six public hearing are being considered for approval.

Do the commissioners have any corrections or revisions?

If there's 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, and they are also available online at our website.

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

in this chamber.

Unless otherwise announced tonight, citizens may contact the city clerk's office or the planning department on the Friday after the planning commission meeting to find out which date the item will be heard by City Council.

The first order of business is the consideration of request to withdraw or continue an item.

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 staff or applicant.

Mr.

Boswick, are there any requests for withdrawal or continuance?

Yes, we have two items requesting continuance, no items being withdrawn.

Mr.

Boswick, please read the applications into the record.

First application is PLN-USC-2025-009.

The project is Chesapeake Waterfront Concrete.

The applicant is James Salmons Jr.

The owner is Chesapeake Waterfront LLC.

Agency is Kinzer Letwich and Cayley PC.

The proposal is a conditional use permit to utilize the site for concrete crushing and recycling and request to allow a height exception for a 170 foot tall silo and tanks.

The location is 2651 South Military Highway in the South Norfolk Planning Area.

Based on the applicant's request, staff recommend that PLN-USC-2025-009 be continued to the September 9, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

Next continuance item is PLN-REZ-2025-020.

The project is Carleton Park.

Applicant is Kroll Residential Incorporated.

The owner is Carolyn M.

Warren.

Agency is William Smallin.

The proposal is a conditional zoning reclassification of approximately 8.4 acres from M1 Light Industrial District A1 Agricultural District and R 10 Residential District to R8 Residential District.

The location is the east side of Battlefield Boulevard, south between Heshin, Loop, and Henry Jefferson Way in the Great Bridge Planning Area.

Based upon the applicant's request, staff recommend that PLN-REZ-2025-020 be continued indefinitely.

That concludes the items.

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

There are.

Speakers, you may hold your comment 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 merits of the application.

Each speaker will have a total of three minutes.

Secretary Malone, please call the speakers.

In support of agenda item number two, Zachary Hanlin.

Good evening.

Just hearing a question.

If you turn your mic on, number one.

Not before, guys.

We got it.

It turned off.

There you go.

It's on now.

And if you say name your name and address.

Zachary Hanlan.

I do reside at 1208 Murray Drive in Chesapeake.

I'm just here to answer any questions anybody has about a request for continuance.

We're asking for approximately 60 days to the September 9th date previously mentioned.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, in our position of agenda item number two, Bianca Schaefer.

Next speaker.

In our position, Simone Simpson.

Agenda item number two.

Next speaker.

In our position of agenda item number two, Eric Braun.

Next speaker.

The following speakers are only available for questions.

Scott Sharon is all agenda item number two.

Scott Sharon, Kimberly Little, Tiara Anderson, Alec.

Van Height.

Vanessa Phillips, Shirley Murphy, Kathy Bright, Denise Marsden, Terrence Logan, Shirika Steele, Aaron Holmes, Grizzle, Malina.

And I don't know the last name.

A new a neural, I think it is.

Brianna Taper, Kendra McFarland, and Dana Holmes.

Thank you.

At this time, uh the chair will accept a motion to continue the items as read by Mr.

Boswick.

Sound moved.

Second.

We have a motion by Vice Chair Squelia, a second by Secretary Malone.

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 consist 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 three 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.

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

Three or more, no.

At this point, the consent agenda is as follows items one and four.

Mr.

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

First item is PLN-REZ-2025-021.

The project is Mir's Creek.

Applicant is Crystal Virginia Partners LLC.

Owners Gary D.

Mears, trustee.

The proposal is a conditional zoning reclassification of approximately 13.2 acres of R15 as residential district to R8 residential district.

The location is the western terminus of Woodland Drive in the Western Branch planning area.

Based on the findings contained in the staff report, staff recommend that PLN-REZ-2025-021 be approved with profits as listed in the official agenda.

The project is Sam's Circle Communication Tower.

The applicant is SBA Communications.

The owner's Scott Lee, trustee for Walmart Real Estate Business Trust.

Agency is Kimley Horn and Associates.

The proposal is a conditional use permit to construct an approximately 199-foot tall communications tower.

The location is 1521 Sam's Circle Drive in the Greenbrier planning area.

Based on the findings contained in the staff report, staff recommend that PLN-USC-CT-2026-001 be approved with stipulations as listed in the official agenda.

That concludes the consent agenda.

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

We do.

Please call the speakers for items on the consent agenda.

In support of agenda item number one, Grady Palmer.

Correct.

Three minutes.

Okay.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, Vice Chair, members of the commission.

My name is Grady Palmer.

My business address is 222 Central Park Avenue in the city of Virginia Beach.

And the proposal before you tonight is a change from residential zoning, R15S, to uh R8S.

And really the idea here is this this piece of property is the last remaining piece of property of the Mears Farm.

For many years, this was a dairy farm, I believe.

Um, but the this was the homestead.

Uh this this property is where the where the farmhouse resided until about I think 2010, uh, and that that was torn down.

And so uh the family has made the decision to sell this piece of property as the last piece of property of the farm.

So one way or the other it will be developed, whether it's developed under the R 15 zoning district or under the R 8, which we're proposing, and and what's coming with that uh zoning classification proposal uh are a number of proffers that I think incorporate some uh intentional design elements uh for front porches, uh walking trails, gazebos, playgrounds, things to make a community and not just build more houses.

And so uh yeah, that's what we're proposing instead of the R 15 uh zoning, and just uh I know my time's running out.

I know we have we've tried to meet with the Dark uh the Dock Harbor people, the residents we're still open to do that.

If anyone's here from that community or listening uh to the presentation, uh, just reach out, you have our contact information.

We are available available to meet with them.

And so with that, I'll stand by for questions.

Thank you.

Ask for your approval.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In opposition to agenda item number one, Karen Graham.

Good evening.

My name is Karen Graham.

I do live at 1816 Reef Knot Court out in Dock Harbor.

I respectfully request that the statements be entered into the record in the opposition to the application proposing the 22 small homes on a 13.2 acre parcel at the of issue for Mayor's Creek.

The reason I pose this application is because proposed development, it constitutes over intensification of the site and is incompatible with the existing character of the surrounding area.

With the density of the 22 homes on these 13 acres, what's going to happen is that it's excessive for this location, and it raises some substantial concerns for us regarding public health, safety, welfare, and the reasonable use of enjoyment of the neighboring properties.

First, the proposed layout that we did see, it appears to place an unreasonable number of structured homes on the parcel, which that results in some overcrowding and insufficient separation between the proposed homes and the existing adjacent residences in which I live on Reef Knot Court.

Such overdevelopment appears to be inconsistent with orderly land and planning, use planning, and may adversely uh affect our privacy, the neighborhood character, and property enjoyment.

The second issue, the application raises some serious public safety concerns.

The board should closely examine whether the site plan provides adequate ingress, egress, internal circulation, and turning radi for our emergency vehicles, including our fire apparatus, ambulances, and law enforcement.

Any deficiency in the emergency access, of course, would weigh heavily against approval, particularly where residential density is being pushed beyond what the site can safely accommodate.

In that this proposal still appears likely to create some adverse traffic and access impacts, including concerns for our school buses, also uh routine vehicular circulation and congestion in that small area.

A development of this intensity with these 22 homes should not be approved unless the application can clearly demonstrate that the road network and the site design can safely support these demands without creating the hazards to our residents, children, and the neighboring properties.

Lastly, here the board should consider the cumulative burden that this could cause on our local schools, the overcrowding with the 22 homes, our utilities, our current drainage system that we do have out there, and other public infrastructure.

Approval of the development of the scale without clear evidence of adequate capacity and suit and site suitability would be premature and contrary to sound planning principles.

So, with that, this is why, as a as a neighbor as a homeowner out here at Doc Harbor on Reef Knot Court, is where I respectfully request that the board deny the application as presently submitted.

If the board is inclined to permit development on this parcel, I just urge the board as other neighbors do as well to just substantially reduce the amount to reduce the density plan that could be more consistent with our surrounding area and be more protective of our public safety and our neighborhood integrity.

Thank you.

Next speaker, in opposition to agenda item number one, Terry Reese.

Everybody else.

Yeah.

Good afternoon.

I'm here uh to object to this right here.

I'm uh owner here at 4441 Willing Drive here at the end, where the quota sac is.

Um, I'm a Class A builder, and I'm a former law enforcement officer here in the city.

Um, this is gonna be a major problem here.

Um I have sent videos in to the board.

I don't know if you viewed that yet to show there's a problem here.

Um if they allow these houses to come here, looking to do 22 houses, it's gonna be a major bottleneck problem.

Um we didn't have emergency vehicles on there.

You can't get vehicles down there.

You can only get probably about two vehicles three vehicles, three vehicles on that road.

And uh get it get really tight down down there down to the end.

But there's a drainage issue down there is not being uh is not being addressed, and I have brought it to the city's uh attention, also to the mayor um on this right here, but I haven't heard nothing about on this.

But now if you put 22 homes down there, you're looking at um each house, each house gonna have like probably two cars.

So it's gonna be like 44 cars coming down there, coming down the congestion.

That's like two cars per house.

And then if you got some people coming over, that's gonna be like three more cars, 66 cars.

That's a lot of traffic on one thing coming down here, and the road is not big enough.

And we haven't drainage this on it and they're not addressing that.

But for one thing, we want to know if they're gonna do this right here, where they're gonna park all these maintenance vehicles at when they do this do this property.

You can't park in front of my yard.

My my yard, my land is right there at the end, right there.

Where they're gonna uh who's gonna address this, who's gonna uh clean up after these guys leave, and also the noise.

And but like I say again, I go back.

There is also is a major problem when the school buses come down.

When the people school buses come down there, I have videotape and showed it to y'all, send it there to y'all, uh vehicles almost colliding right there at the at the intersection because the roadway is too small, it needs to be widened, it's too small.

So if they do this, it's gonna be a major problem.

Um they need sidewalking curbing down there, it's not down there.

It need to be addressed.

So, and and also the streets are caving in down there.

It need to be addressed.

So if they're gonna bring these manned big machines in, it's gonna be a major problem and bring all these houses in.

And I'll leave it like that.

And I also sent this proposal in on May 12th.

I don't know if you viewed that uh the concerns, it needed to be addressed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Following are available for questions.

Janisha Gibbs, Lisa White, Rapaya Murphy, Alan Wiley, Rhonda White.

That completes the speakers.

Thank you.

Is there any discussion for these items?

Here and on a motion is in order for the approval of the consent agenda with applicable stipulations or proffers as read into the record by Mr.

Boswick.

So moved.

Do we have a second?

A second.

So we have a motion by Vice Chair Squelia and a second by Commissioner Gilman to approve the consent agenda with the applicable stipulations and profits as read.

Please prepare to vote.

Please vote.

Mr.

Boswick, please record the vote.

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

Thank you.

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

Uh each speaker will have three minutes to present comments to the commission.

Um, just uh as as we go forward because now we're going to be getting into the data centers.

Um, we just want to make one clarification.

We had a lot of comments that came about banning data centers.

Um, Mr.

Tedder, if you could just kind of real quickly address the issue of banning data centers uh as we get ready to move into these next items.

Yes, sir, sir, Mr.

Chairman.

Virginia law does not allow a locality, which would include Chesapeake to ban a use like that, uh, which is why staff has done the research and presented this ordinance to provide appropriate regulations for the use where they could be allowed with a conditional use permit and appropriate parts of the city on a case-by-case basis.

Thank you.

All right.

Mr.

Mr.

Boswick, please present the first uh are the public items.

The item is PLN-TXT-2026-001.

The project is data centers.

The proposal is an ordinance amending appendix A of the Chesapeake City Code entitled zoning.

Article 7, Section 7-602.

Article 8, Sections 8-601 and 8-602.

Article 9, Section 9-502.

Article 12, Section 12-505, and enacting Article 13, Section 13-3400 through 13-3407 to designate data centers as a conditional use in industrial zoning districts and the Fentrest Overlay District provided certain requirements are met.

The project is data centers.

The proposal is a proposed amendment to the adopted Chesapeake Comprehensive Plan to adopt a data center policy in the appendix to provide guidance for data center development.

Mrs.

Neal will present staff's findings.

Staff offers the following findings.

The proposed text amendment and associated data center policy are consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan and are necessary to protect nearby residential areas while ensuring that future development creates minimal impacts.

The amendment removes data centers as a by-right use in multiple zoning districts, providing greater oversight and allowing for case-by-case evaluation of potential land use, environmental, and community impacts.

The data center policy establishes clear expectations for the planning and development of data centers while maintaining flexibility to accommodate advancements in technology, evolving industry standards, and emerging best practices.

By incorporating broad performance-based guidance rather than highly prescriptive requirements, the policy can remain relevant as data center technologies and operational practices continue to evolve.

The proposed text amendment incorporates both mandatory and optional statutory provisions as adopted by the Virginia General Assembly during the 2026 legislative session and reflected in the Code of Virginia.

The proposed text amendment is consistent with sound zoning practices and promotes public health, safety, and welfare.

Based on these findings, staff recommend that PLN TXT 2026-001 and PLN C O M P 2026-002 be approved.

Secretary Malone, please call the speakers for the items on the regular agenda.

In support of agenda 5 and 6, David Rupp.

And if you would, just before we start, if you have a phone, if you can make sure you place it on silence, please.

Thanks.

Are we on?

Yes.

Good evening, Chairman and members of the planning commission.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening.

My name is David Rop.

I reside at 115 Harbor Watch Drive in Chesapeake, and I serve as chairman of the Chesapeake Alliance.

The Chesapeake Alliance represents 80 business and community leaders committed to Chesapeake's future.

First, I'd like to thank the planning department, city staff, and everyone who contributed to developing this proposed data center ordinance.

Balancing economic opportunity with neighborhood protections is no easy task.

And we appreciate the thoughtful and transparent process brought us to this point.

The Chesapeake Alliance strongly supports this ordinance.

We believe it will become one of Virginia's most thoughtful and balanced data center ordinances, and our four recommendations are intended simply to strengthen an already solid proposal.

First, we recommend creating a technology overlay district rather than requiring a conditional use permit for nearly all projects.

The city should establish a technology overlay district where qualifying sites can develop by right while meeting every standard in the ordinance.

Large-scale projects require years of planning and millions of dollars in upfront investment, and communities that provide greater certainty are simply more competitive and attracting responsible investment while maintaining high development standards.

Second, we recommend allowing small-scale edge data centers and appropriate commercial districts.

These facilities can create valuable redevelopment opportunities for vacant and underutilized commercial properties while still complying with all applicable ordinance standards.

Third, we recommend allowing future flexible on-site power solutions through the conditional use permit process as new technologies emerge.

Finally, we believe Chesapeake residents should share directly in the benefits of future data and center investment.

And that commitment should be clear from the outset.

At our understanding data centers forum, Mecklenburg County's chief administrator shared how data center investment transferred transformed his community.

Over the past 15 years, Mecklenburg County has invested approximately $300 million to build five new schools.

They reduced the real estate tax rate to just 31 cents compared with Chesapeake's current rate of a dollar and one cent.

And they adopted an 80 cent reduction in the vehicle personal property tax.

Imagine Chesapeake using future data center revenues to build schools, provide meaningful tax relief, invest in affordable housing, and support other long-term community priorities.

That's the opportunity before us.

Ultimately, this ordinance is about Chesapeake's future.

We can protect neighborhoods while remaining competitive for responsible investment.

If we make the approval process unnecessarily difficult by requiring a conditional use permit, investment won't stop.

It will simply choose another community.

Our goal should be to attract the right projects in the right locations under the right areas.

The Chesapeake Alliance appreciates your thoughtful consideration of these recommendations, and we look forward to continuing to work with you as Chesapeake plans for its future.

Thank you for your time and your service and your commitment to Chesapeake.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In support of agenda item five and six, Robert Bricker.

Uh my name's Robert Bricker, and I live at 500 Truett Road in the uh Sunray uh historical agricultural district.

Uh I am in support of this.

Uh I think it's a great thing, and I want to thank James McNameyer, this is wonderful.

And uh Miss Alyssa Neal, she answered all my questions.

Uh, the only things that I have in here is I'm assuming you all have copies of this.

If we go to sheet 11 for the setback distances, I do notice that uh it's 100 feet from residential or agricultural zoning.

Uh being from an agricultural district, a great many of our members and I'm actually here representing the Sunray Farmers Association still actually do derive some of their income from agricultural businesses.

So we have about six horse stables out there.

Uh I have a couple questions relating to it's a hundred feet from the agricultural zoning boundary.

If a barn is within 20 feet of that boundary, I'd like to see a carve out for like an ag business carve out potentially if y'all could discuss that during your discussions.

Uh, just to get that a little bit farther away.

Uh, additionally, uh, as far as the maximum height of 95 feet under subitem C two alpha, it says no adjacent properties are zoned or used for residential purposes.

Again, I'd like to see that as a carve out for agricultural businesses or uh working properties just to respect our agricultural producers.

Um, just you know, a hundred-foot building cast a pretty long shadow.

It can really harm something.

Uh, go into sheet 18, and again, I promise you I am in support of this.

This is a lovely document, but go into sheet 18 under noise uh subpart two, uh, where it says study tonal noise emitted from the data center shall not exceed the following maximum permissible C-weighted sound level at the receiving property for more than five minutes when measured in any location at or within a residential property boundary in a residential zoning district.

Our properties are all zoned agricultural, or at least 95% of them are.

I have a fear that this subpart could be circumvented if you know, given the fact that we are not agricultural that we are agriculturally zoned, we're not residential.

So I would like maybe somebody to speak to that during discussion.

And then as far as decibel levels, um, and I'm forgive me, I'm not up on my OSHA standards, but anything under 75.

I think 85 is dangerous, 75 is dangerous over two hours.

Uh I would like to see these lowered a bit just given the animal husbandry fact.

Um, it really could mess up with our ag businesses.

Aside from that, I'm in full support of this.

I love the fact that we're taking away the buyright.

And again, thank you, Mr.

McNamara and Miss Neal.

I see the rest of my time.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In support of agenda item five and six, Brian Dunmeyer.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the planning commission.

My name is Brian Dunmeyer of 2205 Chesterfield Loop in Chesapeake.

I would also like to thank the planning uh department and commission staff.

The proposed data center ordinance and data center policy are thoughtful, comprehensive documents.

My comments are offered in support of that work and are intended to complement it.

I recommend support with four recommendations, and you all have handouts that I uh one-page handouts that I provided.

I would ask the commission to consider one strategic reality.

Today, the entire city of Chesapeake averages approximately 460 megawatts of electric electrical demand each day.

A single one gigawatt high energy use facility or data center would consume approximately 2.2 times the city's average electric load.

Four one gigawatt facilities would uh require approximately nine times the city's current electric demand.

At that scale, energy is no longer simply a utility issue, it becomes a strategic land use planning issue.

My central recommendations are simple.

Strategic infrastructure should guide development and not react to it.

I respectfully suggest four strategic enhancements to the proposed documents and ordinances.

First, add a strategic vision statement that explicitly integrates energy planning, strategic infrastructure, and land use planning.

Second, identify a small number of strategic high energy use campuses, potentially St.

Julian's Creek Annex, Greenbrier, or Compostola Industrial, where industrial zoning, electric transmission, the Virginia Reliability Project, natural gas infrastructure in the South Side, regional fiber ring transportation and regional connectivity already exist.

Third, modify the current standard of simply requiring an adequate level of supply of energy in the draft data center policy section C1 and Section 133406B1, with the requirement that applicants demonstrate an executable plan for on-site matching reliable dispatchable electrical generation developed concurrently with projected demand.

Waiting for additional grid generation after project approval is inherently late to need.

Finally, adopt an infrastructure first policy development philosophy.

Bring the projects to the infrastructure, not the infrastructure to the projects.

Then the developers bring the power.

These four strategic enhancements would strengthen economic development, improve electrical resilience, protect neighborhoods, preserve agricultural land, reduce future infrastructure expansion, and provide greater reliability for residents and private investment.

I respectfully ask the commission to incorporate these four strategic recommendations into the proposed data center policy and data center ordinances before forwarding your recommendations to the city council.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In opposition of agenda item number five, Rogar Ross.

Good evening, Logar Gloss, live at 3800 River Crest Place in the city of Chesapeake.

I also would like to thank the planning department for working on this draft ordinance to regulate data centers.

It is important that we make them a conditional use in the city.

But these documents are not yet where they need to be, and so we ask that you please continue this work for another 60 days and ask the planning department to better engage the residents of the city of Chesapeake on the details of these documents.

The decisions we make today have as much impact on the future of the city as the comp plan or any of the small area plans.

Yet these documents were created with no significant public input.

No public meetings, no surveys, no public review before the final draft was released.

While the planning department did establish a stakeholder committee, it only had two regular citizens on it, and they only met three or four times.

The committee only saw the draft of the full ordinance one day before their final meeting, leaving them almost no time to prepare comments.

And this draft was not released for public review until two weeks ago.

People care about this.

When the CEIC posted this on their uh Facebook page, we had 221 shares.

Reactions were six to one negative.

Even the folks speaking in support this evening are telling you we need more changes to this document.

While the draft is some very good elements, it falls short in some key areas.

And these were detailed in all that up from Chesapeake Sustainability Network to you.

One of these is opening up the Fentress Overlay for development.

We could potentially there have a data center alley.

And we're not sure if all the citizens of Chesapeake are in support of creating a data center alley in the Fentriss Overlay.

We could easily fit 25 efforts mana size data centers in the Fentrest area within a half mile of existing power lines, or several of these hyperscale data centers using up to a gigawatt of power.

Other concerns we have is the noise level, the levels adopted by Prince William County Board of Supervisors were higher than the levels recommended by their own consultant.

Uh also setback distances were mentioned already, decommissioning plans, and we say we want efficient facilities, but we don't adopt any of the existing standards for efficiency metrics.

The policy matters a great deal to the city of Chesapeake to the citizens of the city of Chesapeake.

It has potential to greatly change our city, risking this through the process in two weeks around the Fourth of July holiday and beginning of summer while folks are out of town is not the way to do this.

Please give us a couple of more months.

Let's have some public meetings, let's have some public input, and let's make sure we get this right.

I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In opposition to agenda item number five and six, Elizabeth Gibson Palmer.

Good evening.

I'm Celeste Gibson Palmer now that at 1328.

Am I on now?

Thank you.

My name's Elizabeth Gibson Palmer.

I live at 1328 Laurel Ridge Lane.

Quite honestly, I'm just tired.

I'm tired of watching our community have to come alive every time another proposal threatens the places that we come home that we call home.

When this issue first came before city council, we made one thing very clear.

We were not asking to stop economic development.

We're simply asking that industrial-scale data centers not be placed at our back doors.

And I'm scared that's going to happen once again with the setbacks that are in place.

Sorry, I get real nervous when our public speak.

The planning commission said it looked to Prince William County to better understand the impacts of data centers.

If that experience was valuable enough to study, then we also need to know what we learned recently.

Just six days ago on July 2nd, the digital gateway project in Prince William County has been abandoned after years of controversy, legal challenges, and community opposition.

The very community this commission looked to for guidance has shown that where we place these facilities matters just as much as where how we regulate them.

Residents accept those operations because we understand their importance to our national defense.

That should not become the justification for placing the industrial scale development closer to our homes.

But this just isn't about Ventrus Overlay District, it's about every neighborhood in Chesapeake.

There is a better solution.

Data centers belong in true industrial parks and employment centers that are designed for heavy industrial uses, not next to established neighborhoods.

If Chesapeake wants to welcome the industry, then let's do it responsibly by facing these facilities where they belong, requiring setbacks that truly protect the families who already live here.

We shouldn't be asking families to adapt to industrial development.

We should be planning industrial development in a way that respects families.

Please don't make communities continue to organize and fight this battle one proposal at a time.

Learn from the experiences of Prince William County, increase the setbacks from homes and residential property lines, remove the Fentrest Overlay district from consideration, and put data centers where they belong.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In opposition to agenda item number five and six, Mike Hoffman.

So I shall turn mine on.

Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners.

My name is Mike Hoffman.

I live at 1206 Pino Court in Chesapeake.

I have served on the Chesapeake Environmental Improvement Council for the last six years, including the last two years as vice chairman.

But tonight I'm speaking as a Chesapeake citizen.

Would I like to see no data centers at Chesapeake?

Absolutely.

Would I love to see the Fentress overlay in the Route 17 corridor preserved as city parks or nature preserves?

Of course.

Is that realistic?

Probably not.

I understand the need to balance economic development in the city, also with protecting the quality of life that makes Chesapeake such a great place to live.

I'm not here tonight asking you to ban data centers.

I'm simply asking, as others have, to take a little bit more time to make a good ordinance even better.

It's clear, even from the pros tonight, that some changes are needed.

Stop and think.

This ordinance will shape Chesapeake for decades.

It just deserves a little more time.

The biggest issue that I see with this is ordinance is the cumulative impact.

The ordinance does a great job regulating one data center, but when you think of the impact of five, ten, or twenty over the next 20 years, that's a big impact.

So there's five things I'd like for you to consider tonight.

One, fentress, delay the overlay.

Do not make that a part of this ordinance and do not allow uh data centers in there until more time can be can be taken to study and plan that area.

Second, noise.

Lower the allowable low frequency noise limits to make sure those and also make sure those standards are enforceable over time.

Third, the setbacks.

You've heard this before tonight, too, as well.

Strengthen those setbacks and buffers to better protect the neighboring property owners.

Fourth, accountability, require ongoing monitoring and make sure the operators, not the Chesapeake taxpayers, are responsible for compliance and the infrastructure costs, the huge energy investments that are needed, require rigid electric and water efficiency standards.

And finally, decommission.

Technology changes quick.

Look how it look what you can do in your phone today that 10 years ago took a room-sized building.

And these data centers, no one knows what's going to happen in 10 or 20 years, and don't leave the taxpayers and the city to clean up what could be an obsolete facility.

So I'm asking you not to stop the data center development.

I'm asking you to strengthen an already well-developed ordinance so it better protects the neighboring property owners, preserves Chesapeake long-term vision, and minimizes the impact on our community.

So I respectfully ask you extend the review period for 60 days, gather additional public input, and strengthen the ordinance before recommending its adoption.

This important this ordinance is just too important to get almost right.

Please take the time to get it 100%.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In opposition to agenda item five and six, Michelle Velshi.

Good evening, Chairman and members of the commission.

My name is Michelle Olchi.

I'm the Hampton Roads organizer for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

I'm here today representing our organization and its members in the city of Chesapeake.

I'm very grateful for the opportunity to speak to you tonight about this ordinance and would like to begin by thanking you for listening to the residents of the city and deciding to implement an ordinance controlling the growth of data centers in the city.

In my work, I've seen an astronomical increase in organic opposition to data centers nationwide, and especially in this area in just the one year since we all gathered here to testify against the Etheridge Lakes Data Center last year.

When I attended Pride in the Peak last year, almost nobody knew what a data center was, but this year everyone that I spoke to was knowledgeable and excited about the idea of data center regulation, not only for the city of Chesapeake, but for the whole state of Virginia.

The ordinance we're gathered here today to discuss is a critical first step towards protecting the residents of Chesapeake and neighboring communities from the dangers of these facilities.

So thank you for opening today's discussion to help make this ordinance as strong as possible to protect us all.

Firstly, I'd like to address what other advocates in the room today have already and will speak about.

CCAM believes that the strongest policy that will protect Chesapeake residents from the effects of these facilities would be a moratorium on large-scale data centers in the city until the facilities no longer pose a threat to our communities and are committed to run on a hundred percent clean energy.

Thus, we are asking the planning commission to consider amending this ordinance to include a megawatt square footage or data processing capacity cap that would effectively pause the development of large scale and hyperscale data centers in the city until the technology has effectively progressed to the point where they pose no threat to the community.

I also agree with the statements of other advocates here tonight about setbacks, noise, the fentrous overlay, and decommissioning standards.

In addition, CCAN noted has noted a few areas of concern within the draft ordinance that apply to the energy section.

Um this includes uh this includes loopholes that do not clearly prohibit the behind the meter gas generation at these facilities and do not limit the capacity of backup generator fleets properly.

Firstly, due to interconnection difficulties, many data center developers, including those in Virginia, are turning to behind the meter gas generation as a source of power for their facilities.

These systems consisting of many small turbines are extremely loud and emit dangerous pollutants into surrounding communities.

This is not a operation that we want in the city of Chesapeake, and I think many of us in this room today can agree with that.

Therefore, CCAN is asking that this loophole in the ordinance be closed and that this practice explicitly be banned on data center campuses by defining this generation and also limiting the amount of backup generator fleets at these facilities as well because they're also very polluting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In opposition to agenda item number five six, lead to more.

Members of the Chesapeake Planning Commission, good evening.

My name is Lee Damore.

We started 921 Whisperlo Drive in Chesapeake.

I'd first like to also thank the members of the planning commission who took the time to create the policy and ordinances to protect Chesapeake citizens from ill-advised data center placements.

This included visits to Prince William to leverage their lessons learned from data center proliferation and review guidance to put in place.

I was one of two citizens invited to be a member of the task force involved in drafting the documents.

We met four times, with the last one being on June 9th, where the initial drafts were released for review and comment.

In my opinion, the original draft was a good starting point, but it should not be the final version.

There was a small window for feedback.

A document was drafted and presented for consideration, but most of the comments were not discussed or implemented.

They've been kind of discussed as people talk to you.

One of my comments is the decommissioning.

The current policy dictates a decommissioning plan should be considered, but lacks details.

We would propose something similar to your county's ordinance with specific details for cessation of operations.

I would also like to see a 60-day extension of the task force.

And maybe like somebody else said, include more public air input.

It was only two of us, and to consider these recommendations.

There should be no rush to produce a final product.

This final draft should not be the only one presented.

Getting it right is more important than an early adoption.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In opposition to agenda items number five and six, Jeff Staples.

Good evening.

I'm Jeff Staples.

I live at 1453 Boxwood Drive.

I am speaking tonight on behalf of the Chesapeake Environmental Council and addressing our concerns about the possibility of data centers being built in Chesapeake.

Due to their adverse impact on the environment, public health, and our quality of life, it would be our recommendation that no large-scale data centers be built.

Data centers can place significant demands on water and electricity, generate excessive noise, contribute to air and water pollution, and threaten the city's tree canopy.

We are also concerned about the loss of actively used farmland and green space, particularly in the footress overlay district.

Construction and ongoing operations could undermine the rural character of these affected areas.

We ask that you also consider the risk of peat soil fires, aviation accidents, and reduced property values for neighboring properties.

We also realize that your task at hand is to create a final draft data center ordinance to present to the city council.

We offer the following recommendations for consideration in these areas of water supply, setbacks, noise limits, and decommissioning.

Water supply, the planning department already requires data centers to be relocated on a water public water system in this draft ordinance.

So we strongly support the requirements that these be upheld.

We would also encourage the use of rainwater and other alternative water sources if they become practically available.

Setbacks at the proposed 100-foot setback from property boundaries, the constant noise associated with data noise could limit the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties.

We are going to recommend a 500-foot setback from the property line for property zone for recreational or residential use, especially.

Also, I would say uh agricultural use too.

Permitted data center noise levels in other cities and counties have proven to be too high because Chesapeake currently has only one small data center.

Adopting stricter standards would not risk permits for existing facilities.

CEIC recommends a maximum noise level of 55 decibels C at night and 60 dB during the day operations.

We also recommend clear enforcement standards and mandatory penalties for facilities that exceed these limits.

Decommissioning's if data centers are permitted, they will eventually close.

The city should require clear procedures for safe decommissioning, and developers should also be required to provide a bond adequate to ensure restoration of the site to ensure the city does not incur these costs.

And as far as public information goes, we really need to uh have a clear understanding of resource demands being placed on public information infrastructure and a mechanism to verify operators or complying with these conditions.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker, in opposition to agenda item number five, Jennifer economy.

Good evening, Jennifer Economy, 2708 Cedarville Road.

I live in Hickory, 1.8 miles from Fentress Overlay, and this ordinance concerns me moving forward.

For many residents in southern Chesapeake rely on private wells.

Even if data centers are required to use municipal water, there will still be aquifer strain, construction disruptions, and runoff.

I do not see requirements for baseline well testing, ongoing groundwater monitoring, or compensation if wells are impacted during construction or operation.

These safeguards should be in place before any approvals are granted.

Second, I'm concerned about the setbacks, lighting, visual impacts, and noise.

The ordinance could allow structures up to 95 feet tall, making them visible from one to three miles in rural areas.

The proposed noise limits are also concerning as continuous low frequency noise can travel for miles.

People and animals may not always consciously hear these sounds, but that does not mean they disappear.

Our brains continue processing them 24 hours a day.

Just because something is technically within a decibel limit does not mean it is compatible with rural living.

Is 100 to 500 feet enough of a setback?

With that said, public notification requirements should be strengthened.

The impacts of these facilities extend well beyond neighboring parcels.

Mailed notices should be sent to property owners within at least two miles, with notification also provided to HOAs, civic leagues, and community organizations within at least three miles.

I am also concerned about the cumulative impacts of data center development.

The question is not whether one facility can meet today's standards, but rather how those areas will look, sound, and function after multiple facilities have been approved.

A comprehensive cumulative impact analysis should be required.

A decommissioning bond should be required from day one to assure long-term accountability.

If a facility becomes obsolete in the future, taxpayers should not be left paying a bill.

Chesapeake has about 253,000 residents in 350 square miles.

We are a much more densely populated community with far greater potential for conflicts being industrial between industrial scale facilities and nearby homes in rural communities.

Cities nationwide are being asked to devote substantial amounts of land, water, and power to support an industry that is expanding at an unprecedented pace, and who knows what purpose they ultimately serve.

We hear plenty about economic benefits, but far less about long-term impacts.

For these reasons, please continue this matter so the ordinance can be strengthened with cumulative impact analysis, private well protection, decommissioning requirements, expanded public notice, and stronger safeguards for Chesapeake's rural communities.

Ultimately, the citizens who will bear the long-term impacts deserve a stronger voice than the interests of those who stand to profit.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In opposition to agenda items five and six, Steve Cowan.

I'm Steve Cowan, 808 Brookside Arch.

Well, I feel a lot better standing up here today than I did 14 months ago fighting that monstrosity.

They tried to build on Ethridge Lakes.

So I do feel a lot better that we're talking about regulations than that.

Thank you, Terry Kilden.

But I'm of the opinion, though, that we should not be discussing how to accommodate data centers.

I think we need to be discussing whether they belong in the city at all.

And I think the answer is no.

The environmental society setbacks have been beaten, everybody's heard them.

So we're basically saying, what is the dollar amount?

What tax windfall amount is the right amount to kind of sacrifice and sell out our health in any sort of like meaningful long-term development of the city.

Um I think future generations will look back.

Probably our kids, grandkids will mock the use of these hyperscale data centers in their city.

So avoiding them will be long term will be the right side of history decision for the city.

So it's absolutely doable.

So moratorium, good, banned, better.

Um, I just don't think how do we regulate data centers is the right way to do it.

Keep in mind the land suitable for these facilities, and I really disagree.

Fentress overlay district qualifies.

Um, they're not going anywhere.

Um data centers, if they truly become a good fit for the city, it's still going to exist in five years and ten years and fifteen years.

Um, meanwhile, the technology will continue to evolve.

Communities across the country, we're seeing them continually make this mistake and suffer.

We don't have to be a part of that.

We have the luxury of avoiding that.

We're not desperate for tax income that these could theoretically produce.

We've heard of the tax windfalls.

There's plenty of research on how that never quite delivers, the way it's proposed.

So, like I said, Virginia Beach, right next door, a little bit larger, bigger income.

Currently writing ordinances banning data centers.

So I would argue that that's not an option on the table.

So again, like as disruptive as these data center campuses are up in Northern Virginia and RICO, they're building them out in the West, the Midwest.

They kind of have that sprawling acreage.

I'm against those as well, but they have the sprawling acreage to kind of theoretically do it.

I mean, we are completely landlocked by a bay, the ocean, rivers, another state, you know, just residential areas.

We're just trying to cram something in because it the pitch is good, the money pitch is good, it just doesn't work for Chesapeake.

We're trying to fit something into a place that doesn't work.

So I respectfully ask for a ban on data centers so we can be on the right side of history.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In opposition to agenda items five and six.

Oz and Mert Duran.

Good evening.

Um there should be a document that I handed uh to uh can't remember her name right now, but you should have that in front of you.

Um there is um a draft amendment uh for uh what what this actually should read like uh members oh sorry my name is Ozan Duran, I live at 1125 Lilac Avenue in Chesapeake, Virginia.

Uh that's Indian River.

Members of the Planning Commission.

I'm a pro business citizen speaking against the data center ordinance as currently written.

I'm not asking Chesapeake to ban data centers.

I'm asking Chesapeake to adopt rules strong enough that data centers are only approved where they're compatible with homes, farms, parks, and animals, and the people already living there.

My main concern is noise.

Data centers run all day and all night.

Their cooling systems, generators, transformers, batteries, and related equipment can create a constant um industrial buzz.

The proposed noise limits are too high.

They would allow noise near homes that could sound roughly like people arguing on your doorstep.

Not briefly, but potentially 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

That is not what people live in Chesapeake for.

This is not just a nuisance issue.

Chronic noise exposure is linked to sleep disruption, hypertension, heart disease, stroke, and all increased all-cause mortality.

Based on environmental noise mortality models, constant 73 decibel industrial noise could raise all-cause mortality risk by about 16%.

That shifts the burden of private industrial use on to nearby homeowners.

The city has stated that more than 27,000 residential parcels are within 500 feet of land where data centers could currently be built.

But residents have not been given a public map showing which homes and neighborhoods are affected.

That map should be published before this ordinance moves forward.

I'm asking for five main changes.

First, require a 1000-foot buffer from home, schools, daycares, nursing homes, farms, and parks, unless the applicant meets stronger residential noise standards, residential and agricultural.

Second, lower the residential noise limits and agricultural to 58 decibels C at night and 63 decibels C during the day, with both DBA and DBC compliance.

Third, require all sound producing equipment to be enclosed, internalized, or acoustically treated.

That includes cooling systems, generators, transformers, switchgear, and battery systems.

Generators, as Michelle mentioned, should be specifically addressed because they're among the loudest parts of a data center.

Fourth, before any conditional use permit is approved, require one public color-coded acoustic propagation map showing worst-case peak demand noise.

Fifth, require post-construction testing within 30 to 90 days instead of the one year, including nighttime operation, heavy cooling demand, generator testing, and full load operation.

Repeated noise violations, failure to correct violations, or failure to complete required testing should be crowned for suspension modification or revocation of the conditional use permit.

Thank you for your time this evening.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In opposition to agenda items five and six, Lynn Cross.

I'm Lynn Cross.

I live at 1086 Horwich Drive, which is in Carriage House close to where y'all want to build one of these before.

I'm not an opposition to data centers, they just need to be in the right place.

And I know that Fentress overlay must be where y'all want them built, but they shouldn't be built there.

Those things really should be a mile away from our residents because of the low frequency noise.

And who's going to pay to put all the infrastructure out to one of those?

If you allow a developer to do that, he should be on the hook for all the infrastructures, the roads, sewer, water, everything.

But on top of that, our electric bills are gonna go up, our water bills are gonna go up.

Everything's gonna go up.

And y'all, I know that Fentress is a big deal, but you guys are doing a um plan for Chesapeake Square Mall and Greenborough Mall.

How would those folks like it if you put one of those where the malls are at?

Some of you may live close to it.

Would you really like to live close to that?

The noise.

And don't give them any tax breaks.

This is a money maker from for no end.

Five hundred foot is a joke.

Like I say, it really needs to be a mile because of the low frequency sound.

Um, and everybody else has talked about all the other reasons, so I will duplicate that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In opposition to agenda items five and six, Linda Tindell.

Good evening.

Linda Tendell, 1045 West Road.

I have questions concerning the stakeholder committee that has come up with the minimum standards to allow data centers in Chesapeake.

Why not strive for maximum standards to protect the citizens and the environment?

Who chose the panel?

Do these stakeholders live in Chesapeake or do they live in Norfolk and Virginia Beach?

Do they have financial gain in play?

Do they work for the utility companies or the networks that are seeing dollar signs?

Were the employees of the city chosen because they are known to go along and to get along with the planning director?

In the presentation, it was said that both internal and external stakeholders were included.

This panel was heavy on the internal.

The planning director, planning commissioners, planning staff, utility companies, comprehensive planners, all supporting approval of data centers.

I only saw two out of the 13 listed as citizens, you know, representing the ones who have everything to lose.

And we are the external stakeholders?

That seems wrong.

Why wasn't there a farmer and a medical doctor and a veteran veterinarian and an environmental environmentalist included on the stakeholder committee?

An impartial panel should have been chosen, or at least it should have been made more balanced.

It seems to me that the panel was hand-selected with the end goal to swipe right on all data centers.

Where was the citizen engagement?

This all seems too suspicious for me.

And complete transparency during this process has been lacking.

You can't eat data, and we're running out of water.

We can't afford to support this industry.

Our bills and taxes are rising.

Virginia Power just announced a rate increase for buying additional power to meet the needs of the state.

It is time for the city and the state to tighten their belts.

What was great about Chesapeake is disappearing rapidly by all of this planning.

I have an idea.

Let's plan to keep what's left of rural Chesapeake just like it is.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In opposition.

In opposition to agenda item five and six, Christina Tieber.

Hello.

Good evening.

Can you hear me?

Okay.

Hello, good evening, Chairperson and Committee members.

I'm Christina, T U and 946 Shillely Road.

I think most everything has been said, and I'm just gonna say this.

Like Will Sessum said, hell no.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In opposition to agenda items number five and six, Elizabeth Ainspeck.

Good evening.

We've heard, you've had a great opportunity.

If you would state your name and address I'm so sorry.

You're fine.

Elizabeth Ainspack, 2120 Carolina Road.

So I'm out near the Fentress overlay.

We've had the opportunity to hear some incredibly well-thought out and researched residents speak on this tonight.

They know more about this than you do, judging from the proposal that you're putting forth.

So I strongly encourage you to respect your residents, listen to them.

Your efforts are an improvement, to be sure.

I was part of the group that fought the first data center, and I was appalled at how many things the Planning Commission and the City Council did not know.

You took a developer's word at their as their word, because you know you're all buddies, and everything was getting shifted around.

That was an eye-opener for me, and boy, that got me out from under my happy little rock here in Chesapeake.

So it's a start, but we deserve more.

We deserve more time.

We and you deserve more input from your residents who clearly research this.

You need more public input in multiple formats.

Your standards aren't enough, and that becomes more evident every day when you just listen to the news.

Five years allows us the time to let other people learn, and we don't have to pay the cost for that learning.

If data centers are going to be a great idea for Chesapeake, they will still be a great idea in five years.

Meanwhile, you don't want to get this wrong, and we're gonna look back in five years and feel like total idiots because we thought we knew what we were talking about right now, and we don't know what we're talking about, and the people that want to develop this don't want us to know.

So I recommend again that you take the time and listen to the points that were made today and realize that when we filled the room when the last time a data center was proposed.

We don't have anywhere near that crowd, and you've already had at least six people point out errors in your plan.

Imagine what you'll get when you open it up to public input, or are you afraid of that?

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

In opposition to agenda items five and six, Mary Anna White.

Good evening, honorable members of the planning committee.

Thank you for listening to our concerns.

I'm Mariana White from Norfolk, 600 North Shore Road.

I'm a retired teacher, and I'm very concerned about protecting the watershed that we all share in Southampton Roads.

I have the following concerns about building data centers.

Centers use a vast amount of water, millions of gallons, and electricity as much as the city does.

The constant noise also hurts the neighbors, both people and animals.

Please wait to build more centers until these problems are fixed.

At this stage, the water issue could be improved if regulations are put into place, requiring water to be recycled rather than just constantly drawing more and more water from our groundwater supply.

Qualifying sites should be over one mile from home owners, farm animals, and natural habitat.

Protecting our watershed is one of the most important things that our community can do to help with global warming.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In opposition to agenda items five and six, Dennis Cashman.

Yes, I am Dennis Cashman at 1018 Grantham Lane, Chesapeake.

The proposed data center ordinance and policy is a good beginning, much better than last June at 25 when the planning department with minimum transparency tried to rush and approve the center at Centerville and Ethereum's Manor Boulevard adjacent to residential properties.

The current proposed standards and requirements are not adequate in several critical areas.

Number one, location.

Under the standard industrial classification manual, data centers are classified under code 7374 and 7376, which are not considered compatible with the Fentris Airfield Overlay District.

Number two, we need to set a limit on the maximum electric power draw allowed from any one electric substation.

Number three, the proposed daytime low frequency noise levels should be at minimum of 55 DCB daytime and maximum nighttime of 50, not the recommended 73 and 68.

Will the allowed noise levels apply to the emergency generators when operating 24-7 for days and weeks or just to the HVAC units?

We need criteria for modeling noise levels during plan approval.

We need a plan on how to enforce and penalize the operator who violates the noise ordinances.

Number four, the draft 500 foot setback from a residential property and 100 feet from a property line are grossly inadequate.

I want to be like Tucson, Arizona, Atlanta, Georgia.

They require 2,640 feet.

That's a half a mile.

Even James City County, Virginia, Little Rock, Arkansas, Lexington, South Carolina, Cass County, Missouri require a minimum of 1,000 foot buffer.

Number five, we need a detailed decommission plan for the data center bonded by the operator to return the land to a stable and appropriate post-use condition.

Number six, we need defined standards for data centers designed to meet high standards of energy efficiency and sustainability, specifically for power and water usage.

In conclusion, we are still discovering and learning about the negative impacts data centers are having not only on residents that live nearby, well within 2,000 feet of a data center, but all residents within the broad geographic areas nationwide affected by these power hungry facilities because of higher electric and water bills.

Just this past year, since last year, there have been numerous lawsuits over data centers because of the unreasonable emission of excessive noise, air pollution, excessive water use, and increased energy costs.

Bottom line, with so many known and unknown impacts of data centers, Chesapeake leaders need to proceed slowly and cautiously to get it right.

I recommend a minimum of 90 days to work and correct the proposed draft of data center ordinance and policy to address the issues I have highlighted.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In opposition to agenda items five and six, Donald Fox.

Donald Fox, 1333 Laurel Ridge Lane.

I'm uh, oh, that 100 feet, that's right.

I'm a hundred feet from where that data center was going to be last time.

So let me talk about, I don't mean to demean anybody in here.

I want to talk about Winnie the Pooh for just a minute.

Winnie the Pooh, a hundred acres.

Where is a hundred acres in Chesapeake that we're concerned about at this time?

How about the battery center, not data?

Battery center on Centerville.

They're going to buy 120 acres and only use 20.

Where is Winnie Pooh's other 100 acre going to go?

Well, let me tell you where.

Dominion Energy, $8 more per family, 9 93,626 houses, $773,000 a year extra we're paying starting now.

What is that for?

Let's look at Centerville's substation facility for electricity.

Two years ago, that was its size.

Today, this is the size.

Compare it.

That was that was the electric center.

Now Dominions, that big.

Why?

Because they already have all of this land and they're only using this, now they can do anything they want to with that other land.

So the battery center with its extra hundred acres can become an electric data center.

And how does that happen?

Because we have allowed Dominion Energy to take their electricity facility and make it this big.

Where?

At the Finterest Overlay.

So who's controlling what you all are going to allow?

Dominion Energy.

Everybody's had some really great ideas here.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In opposition to agenda items five and six, Nancy Cashman.

Hello.

This hello to the Planning Commission.

And it I really pleases me to see a member of City Council here also to see how important this meeting is.

That you all listen to our talk and then make your decision.

My name is Nancy Cashman, 1018, Grantham Lane.

And first of all, I want to thank the Planning Commission for voting against the battery storage facility center.

I think that that was very good move on your part.

And I'm hoping you will be using the same kind of consideration for us tonight.

And you were looking out for our citizens and children not wanting it to be near school.

That warmed my heart so much.

Now I hope you will put our citizens first again with this data center proposition.

Data centers should be built in industrial zones, not change our zones for the data centers.

I don't agree that 500 feet from a residential home in school is enough.

To avoid the continuous noise, visual impacts, the optimal distance should be a half a mile to one mile.

And as you know, a half mile is two thousand six hundred and forty feet.

While low frequency humming and localized power grid distortions can affect homes up to two to five miles away.

Data center sites should avoid high-risk areas of natural disasters, such as hurricanes, which happen sometimes in our area.

Plus, needless to say, the debt uh the ventress overlay.

That could happen.

Thank God we've not had an airline incident, but it would only take one.

And they should be built, protecting the remote areas to ensure that technology works well while keeping local communities safe from hazards and pollution.

Why should the citizens of Chesapeake have to suffer?

Because data centers, the excellent CEO Calvin Butler warns that America could face blackouts due to data centers.

Not to mention utility spikes, as other people have mentioned.

Data centers require also millions and gallons of water for cooling, which can force local communities to cover the cost.

Data centers have taken over Northern Virginia, and the citizens have suffered the cost.

I don't want that to happen in Chesapeake.

Make the right decision to protect the citizens of Chesapeake and not the big corporations running these data centers for profit.

Please reconsider.

Prolonging the data centers as long as you can till studies can be more studies can be done.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In opposition to agenda items five and six, Vanessa Butler.

Hi, my name is Vanessa Butler.

I live at 1021 West Road.

I propose that they pass an ordinance that will ban the data centers in Chesapeake.

Stand up like Virginia Beach has done.

Data centers are Pandora's box.

We do not need them here in this city.

We like our rural life.

We do not want us, our children, our animals, affected by the noise and the pollution from these centers.

These centers make a tremendous amount of money.

I don't know anybody in here getting a pocket full of that money, but I do not want my lifestyle interrupted by data centers down the road.

The meteor that formed the Chesapeake Bay fractured the aquifers in this whole area.

So instead of 25 mile-long aquifers, we have four and five mile.

We do not currently have enough fresh water for the animals and the people in this area.

Data centers use a million gallons a day, can go a billion gallons in a year, depending on the size of them.

Please do not let the money that these centers would give in taxes to this city or in the pockets of the people pushing them, blind you to the health of the people and the animals in this area.

Please ban data centers.

I'll ask for it.

You may want to do the ordinance different, but do not open that Pandora's box.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In opposition to agenda items five and six, Richard Titi.

Sorry.

Good evening.

Richard Taitai, 1147 Kingsbury Drive, Chesapeake.

I've been a tax-paying resident of Chesapeake for 35 years, Mr.

Hackworth.

You are my professor at Tidewater Community College.

Thanks for my time here.

I want to say state why I'm against data centers being built in Chesapeake, and again, like others, nothing I say is meant to demean your important work.

As a foundation, the city council rejected the Centerville data center being built last year, 14 months ago.

Public opinion spoke then and is continuing to do so right now.

I'm not sure why we are not now pursuing policy or process for allowing data centers in any measure by adopting limitations for them.

That allows them to be built here as a feta complet.

Just say no.

I'm reminded of an American literature classic we studied in high school, The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail.

The story from 1846, based on Thoreau's not wanting to pay his taxes to a government seen as supporting slavery.

Recall specifically that when Thoreau's friend, Ralph Waldo Emerson, asked Thoreau, why are you here?

Thoreau replied, My friend, why are you not here?

Advancing to present day, we are here.

Why isn't everyone, including our city's leaders, steadfast against these data centers?

Let the data centers be built elsewhere.

Yet we are continuing to air the center's viability in these four, despite having heard from countless experts and other local governments on the adverse biological effects and burdens unnecessarily placed on area citizens.

To wit.

One, potential for noise, light pollution, exhaust emissions, and radio frequency exposure hazards.

Two, encroaching proximity to neighborhoods, increasing traffic dangers to children and bicycle riders.

Three, increased infrastructure costs being passed on to us as residents, four, excessive power use that could result in blackouts.

Five, egregious consumption of HRSD water that cannot be reused, thus draining from our already overpriced regional water supply.

And finally, data centers companies proffered ruses of bringing large-scale employment and reduced taxes to our residents.

A July 3 Fox News report spoke to Henrico County's city man or county manager asking the government to cut back on power consumption due to soaring electricity rates, the result of data consumption, data center overconsumption.

Why should City Hall have to cut back so that data centers can consume?

This is another example of the corporate tail wagging the city and county dog.

Further, a 29 June political article cited another example.

Residents of Fayetteville, Georgia lost 30 million gallons of water to overconsumption by quality technology services data center.

You hit your three minutes.

Thank you.

If you want to sum it up, you can sum up if you want to.

What's that?

If you want to sum it up, you can.

I'll sum it up.

Okay, as a scenario is often related to an oft-used cliche.

We don't know what we don't know.

It is salient that we don't have enough test of time to know the long-term biological effects of data centers.

And I'll just end with another cliche: just because we can have data centers doesn't mean that we should.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In opposition to agenda items five and six, Marissa Berman.

Good evening, members of the planning committee, and thank you for this opportunity.

I live within one mile of the areas that this ordinance effects in the Etherage Lakes neighborhood, parts of which already feel like an industrial wasteland because of the Fentress substation expansion.

And if you want to take a look for yourself, go drive around there and see what is in the backyard of incredible families from our beloved community.

I'm also uh, and I do want to say the fencus overlay will truly destroy that beautiful community.

I'm also a mother of two young children.

I do love this community, and I aim to protect it.

I'm here tonight because data centers don't belong in our communities.

They just don't.

This planning committee should know that even the residents of Mecklenburg County often touted as this great success story.

They are organizing against data centers.

They don't want it there either.

Why?

Let's start with property values.

Communities near large data centers.

They see their home values dramatically decline with massive consequences for their entire families and their futures.

And I don't think that any Chesapeake homeowner wants that.

Then there's the noise, the cooling systems, backup generators that run around the clock, some as loud as jet engines.

Prince William County is currently rewriting its uh noise ordinance because residents they simply can't live with this.

Then there's the power grid.

Data centers are among the largest electricity draws of any land use, and communities nationwide are already seeing grid strain and rising utility bills because of it.

And then there's what we don't know.

There is no long-term research on what the continuous noise, generator exhaust, the cooling emissions, and other factors that we just don't know about yet.

What they do to people living nearby, especially our children.

But every day, there's more and more evidence that data centers are just simply poisonous for our communities.

Please don't turn our communities and our babies into an experiment.

And it's not just me, and it's not just Chesapeake that doesn't want these data centers.

Over 64 billion in data center projects have already been delayed or blocked nationwide by communities raising these exact concerns.

Residents do not see the upside.

Just last month, Virginia Beach City Council unanimously directed staff to draft a citywide ban on large-scale data centers before a single facility was even proposed.

Their mayor said it plainly.

These facilities, they're not good neighbors.

Virginia Beach said no, and Chesapeake should too.

My ask is to put our community members first.

Please protect us.

Protect our communities, protect our families, protect our children and our babies.

Do not put data centers in our community.

Don't approve PLN TXT 2026 001 and 002, as is.

Do not allow data centers in the fences overlay.

And do not allow large and hyperscale data centers in Chesapeake.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In opposition to agenda items five and six, Rebecca Webb.

Two more.

Hi, I'm Rebecca Webb.

I live at 236 Royal Oak Drive.

Uh seeming to be one of the last few to actually speak.

It's hard to say anything further than what's already been said.

But I, for one, have learned a lot tonight about things that I didn't know was in these ordinances.

And I, for one, think that there needs to be definitely more time put into looking into these.

There's a lot we do not know about data centers.

I mean, if you think about 14 months ago when there was that proposal for the data center, I didn't even know what a data center was.

And a lot of people were laughing at us.

Well, what's the big deal?

Right?

It's just a big building.

It's not going to cause any harm.

And now we're seeing nationwide bands.

What does that tell you?

People don't want it 500 feet from their house.

I certainly don't want it 500 feet from my house.

I moved to Chesapeake because I didn't have to listen to so much jet noise up in Virginia Beach.

You ask any locals around here, that's why they moved from Virginia Beach to Chesapeake.

I came here for the schools.

I came here because it seemed like this is the city that cares about raising quality people.

I had my kids in Cub Scouts down the road.

I just feel like we're going in the wrong direction.

And it's not in the direction for the interest of the people here.

It's not.

We need way more time to look into this.

And like I said, what's the rush?

There should be no rush.

Chesapeake should hold firm and do the right thing.

I don't want to be thinking what if I just put an addition on my house because I want to live here.

I want to stay here.

I want to raise my kids here.

I live in a flood zone, which is not awesome, which I didn't know about when I bought my house.

Yeah, gotta love Chesapeake.

But I want to stay here.

But I honestly, if we're gonna we're gonna create ordinances, we really, really need to think about it.

So I beg you, please do not vote for this.

Let's take some time.

Let's actually include more citizens in this vote.

You know, let's let's have more panels with people actual citizens involved with it, the stakeholders, right?

Two people is it's that's silly to me.

Uh thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

In opposition to agenda items five and six, Susan Sherbo Serbo.

Good evening.

I'm excuse me.

Good evening.

I'm Susan Sherbo, and I live at 1424 Waterside Drive South, um, in Chesapeake.

So I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight.

We've had a lot of fabulous speakers here that have gone into great detail about why we should or shouldn't have the data center.

I personally do not want a data center here, um, unless it would be very small, and not contribute to drought and the hot, hot summers we've been having.

So this is another this has been another record summer.

We all felt it with really hot record temperatures again and drought again.

Um, in past summers to beat the heat, uh to unwind, de stress.

I drive out to a relatively cool, shady farm, got some favorite farms that are over by the Fentress Overlay that I really love to visit, and get some ice cream or something sweet, and just to be out in the on the farm, feels better.

Um it was too hot this week to make the trip.

I couldn't get outside.

It was horrible.

So I'm here tonight because I'm concerned for the farms, families, and businesses, which could be seriously affected by water high water usage, energy and climate effects of data centers.

I'm concerned that data centers will run back up diesel behind the meter generators during power outages, or when power across the grid is reduced.

This would increase CO2 and toxic air air emissions in surrounding farms, businesses, neighborhoods, and forests.

Industrial buildings that generate heat often have fewer trees, more asphalt, and reflective surfaces.

The size of data centers would influence heat island effects, especially if they run generators and increase the temperatures.

Oftentimes heat island effects can raise the temperatures.

It happens in cities and different places all the time.

We don't like them.

We're trying to bring down the temperatures.

Oftentimes they can raise up to three degrees or more above the average temp.

Data centers, according to the Chesapeake plan, will draw city water.

Now Chesapeake water has been reliable, but it's not infinite, as other people have shared.

So we don't, we cannot run out of water.

They have to find another way to cool things off.

The data centers do.

Data center water that they do use should not be allowed to be released and flow into streams, lakes, and ponds.

I have concerns because in other Virginia cities and towns, citizens' water has become polluted or scarce because data centers pull millions of gallons of water each and every day.

If you want to sum it up, you can do that.

Yes, thank you.

I'm very concerned that there have been rapid rises in CO2 emissions and temperature rise in Virginia and across the United States.

We've fallen behind in our Virginia clean climate goals to reduce temperature rise, sea level is rising more rapidly, and national climate stats show that weather-related fatalities are highest for heat fatalities.

They're the leading cause of death for weather events, which I was really surprised to hear that.

So I told you I do not want data centers if to do the best you can to help preserve our water supplies, reduce air pollution, heat effects, and effects from fossil fuels.

Thank you.

In opposition to agenda items five and six, Walter McLaughlin.

Here again, my name's Walter McLaughlin.

I reside at 200 Whitehurst Road, Chesapeake, Virginia.

Like I said, I'm not going to set up here tonight and here again go over what you've already heard tonight.

Oh what you've heard.

That y'all said no, you know, at least y'all voted no for it.

You need to vote no again.

All right.

What if it's in your backyard?

Okay.

What I bet your grandkids, y'all got grandkids.

It might be eventually in their backyard.

Okay.

Like I said, Chesapeake's a great city.

Been here all my life.

I've enjoyed it.

I could sit up here and tell you what you're doing wrong, but I'm not going to do that.

But the data centers, it's not for here.

Like I said, up in DC, Loudonary, like I said, they got a big spread, you know, got a lot more room than we got.

And you want you want to cram it in the Chesapeake area.

It's not the right thing to do.

Okay.

You need to do your homework.

Do the right thing.

I appreciate y'all staying awake tonight and listen to what these residents have told you.

Because I don't have to sit here and repeat it.

They've done their homework.

You need to do yours.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The following are available for questions only for agenda items five and six.

Carol Warren and Janet Wiley.

That concludes the speakers.

All right.

At this time, showing on our clockwork at 8 41.

We're going to take a we heard a lot of people talk.

We're going to take a short break.

Let's come back at 8 50.

That's nine minutes, so 8 50, we will come back into session.

We're in recess till then.

I don't know.

You may have not.

That's why it's.

Alright, this time we'll come back.

This time we'll come back into session.

Thank you for giving us a few minutes, stretch our legs, and so we can move on with this.

So as we start, we've concluded the speakers.

Just a couple of things, as as we move forward, just comment-wise.

I know there was a lot about do your homework, and I think uh every commissioner that sits up here takes this responsibility.

Not only do we sit on this commission, we're citizens of this city.

So we take this uh very serious.

I think everybody here gets the package, we ride by places, we, you know, we're doing homework too.

Uh so to say that we haven't done homework or we're not, trust me.

We we we do our homework and we spend nights and weekends, you know, doing research and and trying to find out as much information as we can.

So um another thing that I think was uh just a couple of things to to clarify was, and we talked about this beforehand.

I know we've talked about this banning data centers.

And uh and we had our our legal uh counsel that kind of talked about that, and and if you could just one more time just address the issue of of putting a moratorium or banning data centers from a legal perspective, because we've heard a little bit about Virginia Beach is going to do that.

Uh so if you could kind of address that.

Certainly, Mr.

Chair, and I think there are two parts to the question.

One, as a locality in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Chesapeake is bound by what is known as the Dillon's rule, and without getting too technical and risk putting everybody to sleep after a lengthy meeting, the Dillon's rule basically says that we have to find authority somewhere in the state code for actions that we take.

There is no such authority in the state code to ban a use that is otherwise allowed under the law.

We cannot ban data centers.

There is clear case law, there are clear attorney general's opinions that say that a locality cannot ban a use that is otherwise allowed under the law.

I want to turn to what Virginia Beach has proposed.

It has gotten a lot of headlines recently, what Mayor Dyer and Virginia Beach said, what other city council members have echoed as it relates to data centers, as part of the research and the incredible amount of work that the team here on staff in Chesapeake and the planning department and other departments, as part of this work that we've been doing in putting together our ordinance, we have reached out to contacts in Virginia Beach as they're going through a very similar process.

The City of Suffolk is currently wrestling with this issue as well.

And I want to clarify that what Virginia Beach is doing, despite the headlines that made local, regional, maybe even national news of Mayor Dyer's comments, Virginia Beach is working on an ordinance that is very similar to what's being proposed here.

Appropriate regulations for data centers in appropriate zoning districts of the city of Virginia Beach.

Now, where Virginia Beach's ordinance does differ from what we're proposing is Virginia Beach is proposing to categorize and classify data centers into different categories.

Certainly there is the option to do that.

However, I would strongly recommend against that approach, and I think the approach that we are taking here in Chesapeake, we're proposing to take, is much more legally defensible.

We look at it and say a data center is a data center is a data center, and we're going to treat them all the same.

We're going to make them abide by all of the same regulations.

They're all going to through go through the process of a case-by-case evaluation of the application, of an analysis of the impacts, it's going to go through public hearing.

We're doing that for all of them.

Once a locality engages in line drawing, like what Virginia Beach is proposing.

Certainly, land use in zoning, line drawing is permissible, but it is fraught with legal peril because what happens if we draw the lines incorrectly?

What happens if we classify these data centers incorrectly?

How do we distinguish between a data center that is you know X square footage versus Y?

How do you do that?

So I think Virginia Beach's ordinance is potentially fraught and likely fraught with legal parallel over where those lines, where those categories are being drawn, how they are differentiating between them.

And I think the approach that we're proposing, where we're treating them all the same, it all goes through the same process, is much better.

That is a very lengthy answer to your questions, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, but I think it is important to clarify that no Virginia Beach has not imposed and is not considering imposing a ban on data centers.

That would be unlawful under Virginia law.

Thank you.

Um I think the other thing before I open it up to the other commissioners is just the fact that we did do some presentations and some education, and that right now, with no ordinance uh in place, that there are properties that are are available in Chesapeake that are by right.

And by right means they don't have to come before the planning commission and they don't have to come before city council and they can file and by right they can put those facilities in.

And I think right now we're at about 27,000 different locations throughout the city, uh, that we can do it.

So I think we we we've put up a little bit of what currently is by right.

Um so I just kind of want to want to bring that up if you if you see those slides of of areas that potentially could have something with really just them filing the paperwork and filing a site plan to come in.

So that is that is one thing that is is truly concerning is just the fact that somebody can come in and just do it, and and we wouldn't have that hearing like we did uh when when the last one was proposed.

So um just some some background stuff that that we're aware of that we we came in, and I think there's one other slide um that actually shows there's a parcel um that actually could somebody could come in and file the paperwork, put the site plan in, and if you look uh right to the green area is residential.

Uh if I believe and to the right, it there's nothing there, but it's it's a piece of property that something could be put into.

Um so kind of want to make everybody aware uh also of some of the things that that we've been made aware of as well.

So with that being said, um again, thank you for your patience.

Um we're gonna move on this time.

Um I'm gonna open the floor up to uh my fellow commissioners.

Commissioner Hallion.

Good evening.

Everyone a little bit ago heard about how Mecklenburg's uh tax rate came down to 31 cents per hundred dollars, um, and how that's low.

That got my attention when I heard that earlier in um in June.

Back in 1998, the tax rate in Mecklenburg was also 31 cents per hundred.

It rose to fifty-three cents uh in the early 2000, and then in 2019 with data centers coming into the community, it dropped again all the way to 31 cents to where it was back in 1998.

Um don't mistake for I don't think for a minute that Chesapeake's tax rate on real estate per hundred dollars is gonna come down to 31 cents.

We're taxed less right here in Chesapeake than any other of the cities in Southampton Roads.

We're at one dollar and one cents uh per hundred.

That's not gonna come down uh if you do the math here.

If we came down 10 cents and apply that towards a uh 400,000 dollar home here in um in Chesapeake, you're looking at maybe $30 a month that you may get off of your a real estate taxes.

Secondly, until last summer, prior to me being a member of this body, I was I didn't even know what a data center was, and then I started, you know, watching the news and paying attention and do a little research and digging in and finding out.

And um, I you know, so I I knew just about as much as some of the neighbors you heard early talk about um about not knowing much about data centers, but I figured me being a visual learning kind of a guy, that if I was uh going to be voting on this this evening and a policy that could potentially last decades, it would be prudent if I saw one for myself.

So this last week I drove to Manassas to go see an Amazon data center up there, and uh I when I was driving to the data center I was going, I thought I had passed it a couple of times.

I said that looks like one.

Well, it was one, it was another one.

Amazon uh Manassas is approximately uh fifteen square miles, and they had or no, 10 square miles, and they have 15 data centers in Manassas.

Um they're quite plentiful there.

Some are louder than others.

I did get next to one that I couldn't hear, that I that I couldn't hear any noise.

The one that I went to and I mistakenly took out my camera and started filming it.

They came out and let me know they didn't like that a bit.

Um it was uh it was not marked.

I wasn't even sure it was a data center.

It doesn't say, you know, the East Side Data Center or the Manassas Data Center.

There's just no signage out there at all.

And um it's a big ominous-looking uh large building.

I did manage to get into a resident's house who lived adjacent to that facility.

Um when I got into his backyard on his deck, the noise was louder there than it was when I was standing in the front, and that was from about uh over 500 feet away.

I couldn't see it.

I could not see the data center because of summer times, and there was a big veil of trees that shielded me from seeing it.

The gentleman who lived there, he showed me pictures of the the snow on the ground.

He said snow on the ground in the winter time that muffles it a little bit, you don't hear it quite so much.

Inside the house, you could still hear it.

It was not loud, but it was always there.

And then more concerningly, he showed me where his floor is actually coming apart.

I was able to see the floor coming apart um there.

Now, you could argue maybe it was improperly installed, or maybe his HVAC is deficient.

I've seen a lot of floors.

I'm a property manager in my day job, and I've seen a lot of damaged floors.

I ain't never seen anything like this thing here.

So I mean, there's just more information I think we need to learn.

And that was only, you know, five, six hundred feet away.

When I think about last year, and I saw we could visualize it on Etheridge Manor Boulevard, you could go down and see the houses on Laurel Ridge, and then see where the where the uh the rear of the data center was going to be, that wasn't that great of a distance.

And the one to the south, I think was even more uh it was even closer at about two hundred feet.

So um those things there I wanted to bring up, and I think maybe perhaps uh when we hear about a continuance, that may not be a bad idea, and that would permit us to get other people, and perhaps maybe it would not be unrealistic to think about getting an elected from another jurisdiction, getting a uh a planning commissioner from another jurisdiction to hear their challenges, hear their successes, if any, and uh I it would be great to hear from a I don't know how you do this, but you uh if you get a resident from another city who lives in close proximity to hear firsthand what that might be like, and uh with that I'll yield my time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You got your now's your chance.

Commissioner Gilman.

I have one question and some comments that may lead to other questions.

Um there was something on the generators, right?

The testing requirements, the emissions, um, and that one of the things I read in there was something about uh not being able to use that as the primary source of energy, but will there be any restrictions to prohibit continuous use?

Yes, there is a limitation for generators to be used as backup only, and they can be tested only, I believe it's one hour per day, and that's one generator, not or that's all of the generators, not you know, one hour per day per each generator that they have on the site.

In the event of a power failure, though, and it cuts over to generator power.

Do we have any restrictions on how long they can run?

That would be emergency backup use at that rate, yeah.

Yeah, so no restrictions on that.

It would just be for as long as the power is out and needed.

Okay.

Um, you know, we've heard a lot of comments about the noise, the setbacks, um, Ventrus Airfield being close to the residents.

I share similar concerns.

A lot of the research that I did um was more around the health and welfare of being within close proximity of the noise.

There's there are some studies out there, but because this is coming fast and furiously there are not enough studies out there on long-term effects of of help and um wellness.

But when you look at some of the information just even around the cooling systems cooling systems have forever chemicals in them.

There have been lawsuits around you know drinking contaminated water um shame or is one of the global producers of these forever chemicals they just reached a 450 million settlement for poisoning Cape Fear Delaware.

So I have concerns about these being close to residents where they have wells rate we've got farm animals that's come up several times.

The noise that's produced 247 there's infra sound, ultrasound noises, high frequency that you cannot hear tonal and low frequency noises that are often continuous and they have different health uh impacts on people they can be detect detected for several miles.

And so I I just want to see some changes into what's being proposed as far as the setbacks and the um the noise the noise decibels.

Secretary Millows just a c uh question to clarify um when you talk about cooling systems does staff know if this is a closed loop system or open so our ordinance can um requires connection to a public water system and in the policy there is recommendations for a closed loop cooling system but we did leave that open to allow for flexibility and you know uh changes in engineering and design in the future.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bearfield okay yeah before we get caught up in the specifics I want to be sure that we are looking at the ordinance that's what we're voting on tonight not whether or not we're gonna have them but if we're gonna have them how they're gonna be erected and and what stipulations people have to follow because if we don't do this then a a purchaser could purchase the land build it and just go on about the merry way and they could do it however they want so I want to be clear that's what we're doing tonight.

Can we amend what has been written by city council I I just got voluntary to answer that question.

Commissioner Bearfield uh yes planning commission has the opportunity to make changes to the ordinance that staff has presented that is perfectly within the purview of the commission to discuss potential changes or amendments here tonight.

And I'll add to that we are prepared to hear your recommended changes and to make those changes uh so I know that there's been several things you know bro several items brought up about setbacks and those things if you could provide recommendations on what it is that you're proposing those can be included in the ordinance that you're considering.

Commissioner Williams if I can ask also to reiterate on Commissioner Bearfield's comment um that that map that we have on the left hand side with all the green on it what that is saying correct me if I'm wrong is that anyone at this point and period in time can go into those green areas and put in a data center today with no controls no inputs from the city at all.

Those are where data centers are permitted by right, which means that those can go in meeting minimum requirements regarding site design with setbacks, height, that type of thing, but there is no mitigation that is required for this use being a data center.

So and refine my refine my question a little more, and I'm not the best on my geography, but that green area, green somebody could buy purchase greenbrier mall right now and turn it into a data center today, and we have no control over that.

That is correct.

Vice Chair Squaya?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'll have more comments later, but but to piggyback off of that, we've been asked several times tonight what's the rush?

That's the rush.

That's the rush.

That's what we have to deal with right now.

We could have data centers all over our city by right at any given time.

Um that concerns me.

That concerns me a lot, and that's why at the meeting for the other data center, you know.

I I think I was the person I know I was the person who dubbed Centerville possibly becoming data center alley and being so incredibly terrified of that.

Um, I guess one question that I have is is it procedurally permissible for the planning commission to recommend approval of the comp plan tonight um while continuing or deferring action on the companion zoning ordinance?

And it's not that I'm making the motion to do that, but I'd like to know how we could go about doing that separately if we're not able to come to terms tonight because I know that we don't have the choice to push back and continue um the comp plan piece.

We have to hear that tonight and make a decision and recommendation.

Madam Vice Chair, you're correct that the comp plan has to be voted on tonight to meet state code statutory time frames, uh, otherwise it would just move on to city council without this body having a say in that document or providing a recommendation one way or the other.

In terms of the text amendment, while they are separate applications, there is enough of an overlap that it does make sense just administratively to try and keep these on parallel tracks and keep them together.

I would also note that while the comp plan policy would become part of the comp plan and would guide development decisions through the city, it would have no effect on its own over those green properties, those would still be susceptible without the ordinance, without the text amendment, without taking some action, those green properties would remain green for data centers throughout the city.

So I just put that out there not to sway as the planning commission's decision one way or the other.

Um but I just wanted to note that for your consideration.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just a couple other quick comments if I could.

I am so incredibly uncomfortable with the amount of distance that we have.

Um I I'd say from a pop property line perspective, we shouldn't be able to build any nearer than 500 feet.

And I think these properties should be no less than a quarter mile from residential or or other um business structures.

And and I I can find my verbiage for that, but I wouldn't support anything that didn't have at least that distance tonight.

I'm also quite concerned with the noise piece.

Um I'm sorry, I don't remember who it was that brought it up, but on page 18 where it talked about within a residential property boundary, I don't know why we have to have um verbiage there saying what what it was near, it just for me it shouldn't be any louder than that, no matter where it is.

Um I remain concerned about um animals, and as someone said earlier, I I'm just not an expert in horses and and farm animals, and I don't know anything about that, and I want to just be sure that we do protect those, and then I just have some verbiage cleanup that I'd offer later.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Sproul.

I fear that the citizens have uh have a right to ask questions and their concerns, but we will follow the ordinance.

That's what we focus on tonight.

And I definitely support what a citizens are saying when a data center is first represented, I was um given a tour to where it was going to be.

I was impressed until the citizen brought it to my undivided attention, their dislike for it.

And maybe I see maybe a couple of miles away from that particular area, and just put up a few trees in the little league, it's not gonna stop that noise.

And uh being a part of conservation recreation and part of the game inefficient, I was part of a little voice for the state.

I too am concerned about the dustbows of the animals.

I'm I'm not an expert on it, but I know uh animals will be affected, and then when it comes time for the water, our water supplies pretty much uh three miles down the street, and I don't want to drink that water no more than anyone else will drink that water if they happen to use that water.

But I want to make sure the citizens understand it just would not affect ethics manner, affect all of us in the green.

But I can't support this, but I'm I mean I'm in awe with how we'll put it in a situation that's uncomfortable, at least to me.

So I definitely support the citizens, but it's just the situation that we're in is extremely uncomfortable, and it's an important thing that must be done with tonight.

Commissioner Taylor.

I'm definitely not in support of this um facility going up.

Um, knows I'm a farmer.

I support your citizens because you all support the farmers.

Um we got a lot of horse and animal people here.

I support them, but most of all, I support you all because we are human and we don't need to have anything jeopardizing our health.

So I'm gonna do what I have to do tonight to move this process along, but I would not be in support of it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I know we've talked about residential, and I think it was Mr.

Bricker uh that brought up some issues about agricultural and how far a property line would be from a barn.

Um I don't remember that being addressed within the the text amendment itself.

Um but that's something that could be added in as well.

Uh correct?

Yeah.

So I think that the section that we're looking at here is on page 18, and it's a line that reads, Alyssa, feel free to jump in if I'm wrong here, uh, that the sound level, study tonal noise emitted from the data center shall not exceed the following maximum permissible C-weighted sound level at the receiving property for more than five minutes when measured at any location or within a residential property boundary in a residential district.

Now, I'm I'm uh and I you know, talking to both uh Ben and Alyssa here, but I think if we were to change within a residential property boundary in a residential zoning district to within any adjacent property, that may address those concerns.

Looking for a nod from legal and the right, yep.

So I mean that's certainly a change that the commission could make tonight that would uh in essence uh make these sound requirements universal uh regardless of the adjacent uh boundary at that point.

Okay, and just a uh a couple of of clarifications to make sure that we're good, and then I'm gonna ask I got a couple questions to address some of the things that were brought up.

So, number one was if if the approval of the text amendment goes through and it's approved because ultimately it still has to go to city council and be approved.

Um that's still not a a stamp of approval for a data center.

Data centers are still required at that point to come back for a conditional use permit.

Is that correct?

That is absolutely correct, okay.

And then likewise, if we get this in, and and whether it's city council or whether it's the planning commission, um, but city council can always do an initiating resolution to come back for us to address changes if we had passed something.

And then likewise, I think from a planning commission standpoint, we could actually go back and identify additional areas uh and ask council to to pass a resolution to send it back to us as well.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay.

Um I also want to take a little bit of time to address because I saw it, I read the the matter of fact, I got I got it text.

It was Loudon County went up 25%, and there the teachers were gonna turn the lights out, and then I think we went to it was in Rico County that talked a little bit about the 25% increase.

Um, and so I was like, well, I I kind of thought about it, and I'm like, Well, right's kind of hit by the state.

So could you just address the electrical a little bit of what that is?

Yeah, so there's there are several things at play here, and the uh the news article that you referenced kind of mashed all of them together.

So the the 25 to 30 percent increase that we that you're referencing uh is specific to localities in schools only.

Uh so uh the electric rates that these that localities have been playing are separate than those that residential have played, and the rate rates that the localities have been playing that that they are paying have been uh frozen since 2019.

So the rates have not gone up.

Unlike residential rates that have gone up, you know, uh on occasion through those years, those rates have not gone up, and this is the first increase that we've seen for localities in quite some time since 2019.

Uh so that speaks specifically to uh the uh that that portion of it.

So when we're talking about residential rates and and and the increases, there have been two recent well, one very recent one that which is increasing uh the the 1,000 megawatts, I believe it's eight dollars a month on average is what we're looking at uh from Dominion.

That was you know certainly uh approved by the state corporation uh commission, which is it was is in charge and tasked with setting those rates.

And uh based on information that's been provided to us, uh, those rates have gone up uh basically for the the cost of producing the energy.

And we've been uh we've been informed, you know, from Dominion itself that the those rate increases have nothing to do with the data centers, and there's no correlation between the two of those.

The other steps that Daminion has taken is the creation of the new tier where data centers will be classified under, which will increase the the electric rates for those centers in order for them to pay their fair share, and that will go into effect on January 1, 2027, and that applies to all existing data centers and to all future data centers as well.

Thank you.

Um and I've got kind of one more to talk about because we also talk about, I mean, you know, if if these things come into play here, you know, that these are million dollar investments, right?

And so we've talked a little bit, we've heard about noise, we've heard about issues, and when you put these these multimillion dollar facilities in and the noise, what's the enforcement?

Um, you know, that that's my thing is if if they do come in and they're supposed to do things and they don't, what's the enforcement?

Um we we had and and I brought up the issue, but you know, we we have the the uh the dump that was located off of the veterans bridge uh that we've we've you know been in in a bunch of things, and and there's a whole thing about enforcement, but what makes it easy for the for the city to enforce these, and I'm not comparing the two, I just just know that that that's been one issue that we've had.

Um, but what is the right for the city to enforce it and to make it right and to fix it because again you're affecting, and I I don't care whether it's a farm, whether it's a house, whether it's a business, if there's no enforcement or you can't enforce it, uh it just doesn't hold weight.

So, what what what guarantees do we have of enforcement?

Mr.

Chairman, I can answer the question.

Uh I'm an expert in a lot of things.

I'm certainly not an expert in this.

We do have our deputy director of development and permits and our zoning administrator Kevin Kemp is here if uh the commission has any questions for him, but just generally enforcement of the zoning ordinance is governed by Article 20.

We decided not to include specific enforcement provisions for data centers because we already have robust enforcement provisions in the zoning ordinance that would apply here, and that can range from uh would start generally with a notice of violation informing the owner that they're violating the zoning ordinance, giving them a chance to remedy that.

Uh, if that continues, that could result in a civil claim against them through the courts.

Eventually, if that civil claim goes on long enough and grows big enough, that could turn into civil penalties.

The city would also have the option, because we are making these conditional uses and they require a use permit, the city has the option.

If there are violations of the zoning ordinance, if there are violations of the stipulations that are imposed on the use permit, the city would have the option to revoke that permit and shut the data center down entirely for noncompliance.

That would, in some cases, also be an option through the court through injunctive relief.

We could get a court order doing something similar.

There's a range of enforcement options here, just like there are for any provisions of the zoning ordinance.

And potentially those could even go from civil into potential criminal, depending on how things progress.

Correct.

Okay.

Um then and then I think the other thing that was important to me and and we got Mr.

Jurgens from uh our director of public utilities, but we we hear about water consumption, we hear about tapping in.

Um do you mind coming up and just answering, you know, whether it's the podium, but you know, what what the regulations that as we have them proposed uh require uh any data center to to hook into city water, um, and not to any type of wells or anything like that.

So, what would be any of the financial impacts what uh of tapping into that?

How does that affect?

Does it affect the taxpayers?

Does it not affect the taxpayers?

How how if they're using so much water, number one, could we supply it?

And then two, how does it affect the taxpayers themselves?

Because we always hear about electrical cost and water cost, the utilities.

Who's fronting these costs for these data centers to go wherever they might go?

So there's several parts to that answer.

Uh, first of all, can we provide the water?

Uh we have we have access to about 30 billion gallons of water per day right now.

We use an average of around 16 million gallons per day.

And so we can we can provide almost double the amount of water we're using today as treated water from our variety of sources.

Because we have Lake Gaston that we have 10 million gallons of water that we own from that source, we have the Northwest River 10 million gallons, we buy water from Naufelkin Portsmouth, and we have we have seven of our own wells, including the aqua for storage and recovery well that we have in the ground where we've put 3.7 billion gallons of water stored in that aquifer storage and recovery facility.

So we have ample supplies of water generally.

A data center is very location specific, and so we would have to have a distribution system to get water to that location.

So location is incredibly important.

If we don't have the distribution system to get water there, it would be entirely the developer's responsibility to pay for and construct the infrastructure to get the water to that location.

So it's it would be not at a cost to the ratepayer taxpayer, it would be at a cost to the developer.

There are locations where a data center or a high use can be beneficial, and one of the reasons that the Fentress Overlay District may have been mentioned is that we are constructing at the Navy's expense a water line going out Mount Pleasant Road to the to the Fentress Airfield because of contamination of groundwater due to the firefighting foam that they employed at that facility and in their training efforts for many decades.

That's contaminated the groundwater, so the Navy is paying to extend a 16-inch water line out to the fencers airfield.

Now, that 16-inch water line had to be that large in order to get the water that far and meet the demand of the airfield, but it will an additional use on that water line will help it stay fresh.

We can't let the water get stale.

So there are times when we actually have to flush potable water out of our system to ensure the water quality stays high.

So having a steady user on that pipeline would be beneficial to the water system and thus to the ratepayer, because instead of dumping the water to the environment, it would be being sold.

Now the majority of the water that a data center would use would be at the highest tiered rate.

If they go over 200,000 gallons per day, then that would be at the lower industrial rate that is is a cost of service because of providing service to a single user at one point is less expensive than providing to thousands of users that are spread spread out more.

So, in a word, on the effect on ratepayers, having another large user or having a large user actually spreads out the cost of all of our infrastructure more, uh a one million gallon per day industry is less costly to the utility to provide that water to that industrial customer than it is to provide the water to the 6,000 homes, just because there's only one pipe.

There's only one meter, there's only one account.

So you don't have to oversize infrastructure for peaks like you do with with residential, because we have a water demand that matches roads.

People get up, they use a lot of water, then they drive to work, they use a lot of road.

People come home, they use a lot of road.

When they get home, they cook dinner, they do laundry, they do all those other things, they use a lot of water.

So we see peaks just like roads do.

Um I think that covered if you put it put the signs down, thank you.

I think that covered most of most of your question.

It did, it did, thank you.

Um, follow-up to that for you.

Oh, Mr.

Jurgens, you I have a follow-up for you.

Um we purchase water from other localities.

Is there a risk of if they're putting data centers in their localities of us not having enough water or not getting water from them?

So we work with the U qualities with the localities together.

We have a contract with port uh with the Virginia Beach that guarantees a certain amount of water throughout 2042 for Portsmouth.

Our contract goes to 2047.

So there that's a contract that's in place.

So while what we purchase is deemed as excess water, they can't they're required to provide that except under unusual circumstances.

So there really is not that risk for the next uh 2042 being what 15 years to 16 years away.

Uh and then they don't want to lose us as a good customer, both of those cities, so I think that risk is lower, and we also have not tapped in contractually to our 10 million gallons we have available from Lake Gaston.

So we have more untreated water available from that source as well.

Okay, thank you.

I have a follow up too.

I have different subjects, so if he has a follow-up, okay.

Uh Commissioner Malone.

Can you speak to whether or not a closed loop system would prevent groundwater contamination?

So I'm not an industrial engineer, so I wouldn't want to give an opinion on something that isn't my area of expertise.

I just want to answer questions as it relates to the water utility.

Commissioner Gilman.

Yeah, I um wanted to address um, I think it was Commissioner Taylor and Commissioner Sproul who brought up about the animals in the farmland.

I did do a little bit of research on that and how it affects them.

Um, it does state in the research that the frequencies that can propagate long distances affect species like cows who have wider hearing ranges, uh noise generated by data center operations can contribute to chronic stress in livestock and wildlife and have shown uh prolonged exposure to elevated noise levels, can increase stress hormone concentrations, elevated heart and respiratory rate disrupt feeding, breeding, and communication behaviors impair immune function, and reduce overall productivity.

So there is a risk to livestock and animals, and I think being able to include that in the coverage as far as residential as well will be important.

Commissioner Taylor.

So I have a question for you, yes.

So as you know, you're saying you have Apple amount of water.

Um my thing is we've been in a drought for the last three months.

They was already talking about um making us not use as much water as we been using.

So what if we was in a drought for another month or so, and you still trying to use that more that water to you uh utilize that facility?

What do you are you gonna set your water system down for that?

I mean uh use less water or are you gonna still make the citizens use less water?

I mean, my thing is everyone try to compensate for what they want for their purposes, but we have to live here.

We need the water to wash clothes, feed our kids, make milk for the babies, feed animals.

You might have to put water and antifreeze mix in your farm equipment.

So even though you have that water, the access to that water, if this city goes into a drought, what are your what are your backup plans?

So, we actually have participated in state level drought uh phone calls lately, and we've got another one scheduled for this Friday.

So we do we we stay actively uh involved in the state level process.

Our backup plans.

For one, the Northwest River is pretty drought resistant.

What happens in the Northwest River when we have a drought is that the salt water comes upriver, but the volume of this available there doesn't go down because it's fed actually by Albemar Sound.

So and we have reverse osmosis treatment for that river.

So we are able to treat the water that comes upriver.

That is a very reliable supply volumetrically.

Secondly, uh the water that we get from we buy seven million gallons of untreated water from Naufolk that comes out of their western branch reservoir.

That system is fairly drought resistant.

I just say fairly, I'm not an expert on how it how it uh operates in a drought, but the they receive water there from Lake Gaston, 60 million gallons of water per day, and as well as the natural water that comes from the from the watershed that goes to that reservoir.

Now folk also gets water from the Nottaway River and the Blackwater River.

So they have multiple supplies.

We have our seven wells that we have three and a half million gallons of water available from our deep water wells that range anywhere from 800 to 1300 feet deep.

So those are in the top Potomac Aquifer that is really drought proof.

Um we have our aquifer storage and recovery well that we can get another three and a half million gallons per day out of that is drought proof because that's in that same Potomac aquifer.

So as far as drought resilience, the city of Chesapeake is quite drought resilient.

We the rules we would have to follow would be imposed on all localities by the state based on the degree of drought in your location, but independent of your water sources and supplies.

So the city of Chesapeake has a remarkable number of sources of water and a large variety of them that makes us much more resilient than most localities.

Okay, I understand that.

So you know they build in hundreds of homes and new facilities.

You got to compensate those people as well.

Water, y'all, y'all put mandates on water every year.

Um you can't wash your clothes, you can't wash your car, so forth and so forth.

The thing of it is is why would you put up a facility that use that much water when you got citizens that need that water?

Why?

What is the what is the general purpose of it if it's not beneficial to us?

It's not gonna help us with the roads.

I mean, we pay taxes every every every uh quarter, right?

I I'm I can't.

I'm not gonna speak to the taxes.

I'm just I'm just letting you know we pay taxes every quarter.

We still got overhung trees, we still got ragged roads.

Why not invest the money into what Chesapeake is here for?

Revitalize Chesapeake before you do something different.

So Mr.

Jerkins can answer the water, but some of those questions would he wouldn't be the one that to actually ask.

So so the the question I heard on water, we haven't placed restrictions on citizens' water usage for decades.

We don't we have not placed any restrictions on sitter water citizens' water consumption for decades.

It was one just last year.

Not in the city of Chesapeake, imposed by the city of Chesapeake on our customers, sir.

It was I have well water, that's the only thing that saves me.

But other people, they've I've talked to people.

We have had restrictions.

Thank you.

All right.

Commissioner How you.

Hey, I'm not sure who to ask this to, but we heard uh mention of the closed loop system.

Uh Ms.

Neal, perhaps this would be in your wheelhouse.

Um when we hear that mention of a closed loop system, is that similar to a closed loop system on a residential geothermal uh HVAC system?

Do we know Mr.

Meckner?

I don't think any of us are quite familiar with the geothermal uh HVAC.

I would assume if we're talking about closed loop, that we're probably talking about similar technologies, uh, but I cannot confirm that.

Okay, how much of the Fentress Overlay District has uh public water?

Uh so right now the f the Fentress Overlay is a really large geographic area, and there are men there's portions of like Etheridge Lakes uh that are within the Fentress overlay, and those areas certainly have access to public water.

Uh Centerville Turnpike is uh, and I'm looking at David here, he might be able to help me out.

Uh but Centerville Turnpike is typically the line where we see uh the water being supplied to and and and where it's not.

Dave, you want to take this one?

So at the current time we have public water on uh Widamore and Murray streets that are east of Centerville Turnpike.

We have water on Centerville Turnpike.

We have water going on the east side at Schoolhouse Road, and going down Mount Pleasant Road to the Christian School.

Uh it goes just past Ravenna subdivision on the north side of the road.

However, we have the project that the Navy is paying for to extend water all the way to Fentress Airfield on Mount Pleasant Road.

That project is nearing or it is a completely designed and will be going into construction within the next year.

So at that point, we will have water on Fentress Road, all the correction, Mount Pleasant Road.

If I said Fentress earlier, that was a mistake.

It's on Mount Pleasant Road going from Ravenna all the way out to the air front gate of the Fentress Airfield.

Okay.

So the vast majority of the Fentress Airfield uh overlay district does not have uh public utilities, correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

So with that in mind, anybody who's any any data center who's gonna locate in the uh they're gonna have to have the closed loop technology, which is not going to consume uh public water.

Is that correct?

I would I'm I wouldn't want to answer that because I'm not sure what a closed loop system would demand.

Yes, okay.

I was actually asking Mr.

McMahon.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

So closed loop systems still require water into the systems, and any data centers uh that are being proposed must connect to a public water system, even if they use less water for those closed loop systems.

Doesn't that limit uh a great portion of the Fentress Overlay district as being a viable location for data centers?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Okay, now shifting to noise for a moment.

I noticed when I was in Manassas that these data centers tend to cluster together.

So when one gets approved, all the rest of them think, Well, that place worked good and they got approved, we're gonna apply in close proximity.

The noise I understand has an additive feature.

So when you have four or five data centers in close proximity complying with whatever noise range we have on here, all together there's going to be an additive feature where cumulatively they will supersede that level of noise.

Who do you assign um accountability to?

How do you I mean I don't I can you speak to that?

Yeah, so as part of the ordinance uh under section three here, a pre-construction study assessing the existing ambient noise environment of the proposed site that includes measurements taken.

So you would establish that pre-existing condition with the existing data centers that were in place uh before uh the addition of another one.

So you'd have that that for a baseline to see uh what the the cumulative effect would be.

Okay, and then one more in that regard.

Um this would be an industrial noise ordinance, right?

So when somebody calls and they're they're going to file a report, a complaint, they're gonna be what I learned when I was in Manassas was that the industrial uses are often immune from a residential noise ordinance.

That's correct, and that's something that we pointed out when we did have the Etheridge Lakes um application for a data center, is that uh the city's noise ordinance often exempts uh industrial properties and HVAC equipment from needing to you know abide by the the noise policies within there.

Um so in this instance with the data center text amendment, we have proposed uh regulations directly within this section of the zoning ordinance, uh so it would apply to all data centers that are proposed by way of a conditional use on M1, M2 or Fentrests if that's approved.

I have one question.

Vice Chair Squalia.

Thank you.

I'm really trying to get to the right place and and put the pieces together to fix the things in in my vision, and and I just I keep going back to a no vite, excuse me, a no vote tonight is a yes vote to a data center wild wild west because if we don't vote to at least put parameters on these things, they're gonna be built, they can be built.

Some people listening in the audience here or watching may not realize that the last data center application that we had that we were able to say, no, this isn't the right place in our city for, there was a parcel of land directly across the street from that they could have built one without coming to us, and so that could still happen right now, tonight.

Somebody could file an application to make that happen.

And we have got to do something.

I'm still really, really concerned.

Um, as my fellow commissioner just mentioned about the cumulative impact.

Um, I don't know how we can incorporate something.

I don't see anything in there, Mr.

McNamara, that makes me feel comfortable enough, and and I want you to speak to that because I know that you really have a great understanding of this, and you've worked so so hard with so many localities.

It's not just um what you just talked about with with the noise that we have now.

It's if it takes eight or nine years for a data center to be approved and then go through the Dominion process and then start to be billed, and we've got several of them in the pipeline.

Well, if they're taking noise samples now and there's already six of them approved, what is that gonna look like?

And then as that relates to electrical generation and emergency response things, things of that nature.

Could you speak to that for us?

Yeah, that's certainly a great question.

And I think you know in in particular, you know, there's a lot of data that goes into these sound studies, and they they can make a lot of assumptions.

And I think if we were to look at, you know, a cumulative effect of having multiple data centers in the same area, at least in in the pre-construction study, you could simulate what that would look like by using the information that's provided from each of the data centers.

You know, we we're certainly gonna get the information for each of them.

So when an uh let's say that we had an application that was approved and a data center, you know what was approved in place, and there was a data center in the general vicinity, being able to share the information from the previous data center and have them incorporate that information into their modeling.

I certainly I certainly think is uh is a possibility.

Uh you know, I I think that uh you know, it's it's it's certainly a a something that you know we can look at and and kind of you know make sure that we put something in here to say, you know, then shall you know accommodate any additional approved data centers within a certain distance.

Um, but you know, once once these things are up and running, again, you know, the noise standards are set, uh, and and if we do get to a point where the noise is over, we have recourse to ensure that the cumulative effect at that point is still not over the the amount that is recommended by the ordinance, and Mr.

McNamara, if we were to pass this recommendation tonight and city council were to pass it, how soon then could we come back to make modifications as as we got more information from citizens and other groups?

As soon as city council passes an initiating resolution directing us to begin work on that, uh Secretary Malow.

Mr.

McMurra, I understand the the uh public water limitations in the um fencers overlay.

I believe earlier you mentioned or you stated that uh the builder would be responsible for getting public water to the the facility, correct?

So that was Mr.

Jurgins, but I can confirm that that is what Mr.

Jurgen said earlier that the cost for the infrastructure to provide that service would be uh bore by the developer.

So then that makes the fentress overlay area fully available.

There are there are no limitations there then.

Do I understand it correctly?

There would there would be limitations based on the capacity that they would be able to get from our existing system and extend out to wherever they wanted to build.

But if the city council and planning, if the planning commission and city council were to approve a development and the extension of the utilities to that location, but that's a you uh city council decision on on a case-by-case basis, but it they that would be able to be approved, or would to be built physically if the council were to approve that.

Got it.

So but does that result in a public bill or is that the builders?

The developer would pay for that extension.

The developer would be responsible to pay for that extension.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Nope.

Um Commissioner Sproul.

It seems as if we say a no is a yes and a yes is a maybe.

And that's um it all up.

And I'm not for this at all.

But if we say yes, it's not good, but we say no is no for the domain, then it go to city council.

And if city council say yes, then it come back.

I'm right pays to us and we can uh make the adjustments upon what city council say I'm not committed along those lines.

So once this goes, city council will have to vote on it.

Um either if they did another initiating revolution resolution to send back to us, we could, or if the this planning commission uh requested that from city council to come back, it could potentially come back to us.

I just want to make sure that the citizens understand what's actually being said here.

I'm looking at a puzzle faces, and I too am it all, but however, we do have to make a decision.

I'm not for this, by the way.

But then I got no is a yes and a yes is a maybe when it comes down to them to go to city council.

So we have some decisions that need to be made tonight.

Uh Secretary Malow?

So just a final comment.

I think uh Vice Chair Sequoia mentioned it earlier.

If we don't do something this evening, we leave ourselves at risk for data centers in multiple places where we may not want them.

I think the best course of action in the near term is for us to approve.

I think uh if I have it right, I might be getting it backwards.

The map on the right hand side is what we want.

That allows us to place some controls uh in position to keep data centers in very specific areas automatically.

Everything else still has to come back to us for approval.

Right?

That is correct.

Commissioner Williams.

Yeah, I just wanted to kind of iterate that to add on to my compatriot that how important we are that we need to move forward with this.

And we haven't asked the question, why are we getting more data centers?

We haven't, nobody's we haven't really said that.

The reason we're getting more data centers is because we're all use these.

We all use Amazon, we all use Netflix.

And maybe maybe some folks have turned them all off.

But every one of those, if you use any of those devices or any of those things, they're all calibrated with large language models.

And large language models drive this data.

So the reason why I'm saying that is that we need to press forward to make sure that we have the influence to make the map on the right, the way that we can affect it, because the need is still growing, and you add AI to it, it's you're going to people will dive into those green areas and start putting these putting these things in outside of our control.

Simple as that.

All right.

So one thing to come up, you know.

Hold it down.

So one other thing that that I think I need some clear just clarification.

You know, we talked a lot about uh what you know what the zonings were going to be and things like that, but then we specified the Fentress Airfield overlay, right?

Uh does that need to be specified?

I mean, in reality, shouldn't we look at a parcel as what's there?

I mean, I I and I know that would cause for for rezoning as well as conditional use.

Um doesn't need to be in there because that that's one of the things we hear a lot is is that fentress airfield and and what's there, and and so we talk about you know things that the Navy limits and some things like that.

So does it need to be in this text amendment?

So we certainly placed it in there based on the fact that you know there are uh you know certain restrictions about uses that that cannot go there.

We talk about compatibility with with naval operations.

A lot of the the compatibility concerns that the Navy has are the same compatibilities uh concerns that we have with data centers.

So we talk about not wanting them close to residential, that the the Fentress Air Overlay District doesn't uh doesn't permit additional rezonings to allow uh residential type uses.

Uh we talk about the need for infrastructure in place, and you know, we certainly have you know a water line that is going out there that could use a a uh a user that would help with the quality of that line.

So, you know, there is some nexus between you know looking at this type of use from the from a compatibility standpoint with the fentress overlay, reiterating the point that these are not a buy-right use in the Fentress overlay, that they still require city council approval to go in there, it's still a case-by-case basis.

Uh we have taken similar approach to other types of uh these use light industrial uses like these uh in the Fentress Overlay district, and we allow them with a conditional use now.

For this planning commission is just you know, up to the planning commission's discretion to certainly you know strike that and to say that you know, no, we would like you to rezone the property for industrial use and then pursue a conditional use permit.

Uh, and that's certainly possible, uh with uh with the with this ordinance as it's permitted right now, but to uh to follow the existing precedent and the types of uses that we're looking for, that's why we recommended the Fentress Overlay district as a conditional use.

Thank you.

Um just a clarification, yeah.

Go ahead.

Just a clarification on the second on the right, we have by right down in the bottom left.

But we just said nothing can be done without a conditional use permit, and it wasn't by right, yes?

In the Fentress Overlay District, the only location that is permitted by right in the city without any city council approval is in the Coastal Virginia Commerce Park based on the PUD documents that have been already established.

All right, so at this time, um, Vice Chair Squalia.

If nobody else has any comments, I'm prepared to make a motion.

Um if we if we're going to uh make changes, let's kind of go through and make sure that we're we're good we're good with them.

Yeah, I have a lot.

And I imagine the several of us do.

So maybe if we could just throw them out there, Mr.

Chair, if that would be okay.

That works for me.

Okay.

Um so the ones that I have would be uh page seven, section 13-3404 B2A, item 2A.

Amending that to read, are you with me, Mr.

Tetter?

Identifies the existing or planned infrastructure that will serve the proposed data center and certifies that the proposed data center can be served without materially diminishing the reliability, resiliency, capacity, or availability of electric service to existing residential customers, schools, hospitals, emergency services, agricultural operations, or businesses, page seven, section 13-3404 B2C, amending that item to read estimates the proposed data center's energy usage and voltage level at full operating capacity, including all planned phases of development, anticipated future expansions, and the ultimate build out of the site, and then uh pages eleven, twelve.

This is probably gonna be something for discussion, but what I'd like to see is a minimum one thousand foot setback from any structure, um, and also that the parcel be a half a mile away from any residential or schools, or daycares, hospitals, nursing homes, or assisted living facilities.

Have you gotten all that so far, Mr.

Tetter?

So, uh any discussion on those recommended changes?

Everybody okay with that?

I agree.

Okay.

And I just had one little note that said Chesapeake deserves for us to protect the goals of preserving rural character and protecting established residential areas.

Um, Commissioner Howard.

One question.

Um, over on page five where it says data centers that propose any accessory use shall use accessory usage uh are operated in accordance with applicable law.

Are there any other known accessory uses of a data center other than that of a battery storage center?

Are we are we talking about potentially substations as well?

The tent of the language there was the better energy storage systems that might be part of data centers.

I think our requirement that is part of the application, a data center provide confirmation from the electric utility showing what infrastructure is able to serve the site or will be needed to serve the site, would give us an idea on a case-by-case basis what additional requirements we would want based off of any additional infrastructure that would be needed.

Okay.

And to Commissioner Squelia's point, I would say that we increase that to 1,320 feet from a thousand, that's a quarter mile.

Thank you.

Are we?

I want to make sure anything that we're looking at the potential of the change that that you got it.

We good so far.

Okay.

Commissioner Bearfield.

Yes, um, I do want us to address decommissioning so that we are not left with eyesores as technology changes.

I think that should be included.

Okay.

Should I?

Mr.

Titter.

Yeah, there was a lot of discussion about decommissioning, and this was a discussion that staff and the stakeholder groups and all of our research, we considered this as well.

Unfortunately, we're gonna circle back to that Dylan's rule issue.

Uh, the planning commission may be aware that for solar farms for battery energy storage systems, we do have decommissioning plans.

We do require the financial assurances typically in the form of a bond to be provided to make sure that that would be done at the end life of the use.

That is specifically allowed for solar farms and battery energy storage systems in the state code.

We have clear statutory authority that allows us to have those agreements, those financial provisions in place.

There are no such allowances currently for data centers.

Now it may be something, I know that this is a topic that has come up before the General Assembly in a lot of different capacities, everything from land use regulation and taxing and other considerations.

It may be something that the General Assembly decides to change, but that would have to be done at the state level before we could have agreements like that for data centers.

That being said, I'm gonna rely on Ms.

Neal's expertise because I do believe we did call for in the policy, it cannot be a requirement in the ordinance, but the policy can strongly suggest that applicants consider doing that voluntarily.

So we we will as often as we can try and get that, but it cannot be a specific requirement in the ordinance.

So I'm just gonna follow up with you know, we do a legislative package or the city does a legislative package every year.

So is that a way to send a recommendation to ask council to include uh things that we see are are that we can't enforce to put into the legislature.

Is there a way for us to do that as well?

There's there's certainly ways that we can bring about uh legislative leg legislative priorities, you know, so staff certainly has that ability as well, and we can certainly raise that as a concern.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Gilman, did you have anything?

No, I just wanted to get the commission's opinion on the decibel level maximum permissible.

And I don't know what our options are there, but it still seems pretty loud in my opinion.

Yeah, I agree with the commissioner.

I think the distance that we are I think hope hopefully are changing it too should help with that quite a bit.

True, and we could always re-evaluate that after, but it's still a concern.

I agree.

And I know uh uh you know I know Mr.

Ross actually talked about a recommendation that was made by consultants by Prince William, and and and they increased it, I think five during the day and five during the night.

Is there a reason why we can't enforce what the recommended was there a reason behind that as well?

In talking with the county administration with Prince William County specifically about the previous recommendation versus what was adopted now, uh the reason for that was specifically that the the tonal volume, and and I think it's really important to to say that DBAs are very different from DBCs.

So a 65 DBA, you're gonna hear it.

It's gonna sound you're gonna be able to hear that at a DBC, that's a very different sound.

You're the the previously proposed ordinance in Prince William was so low that when looking at things, it basically put them in a very precarious situation for enforcement because you couldn't even determine if they're that the noise was just background wind or whether it was you know some type of noise.

So in that case, in conversations with the industry as well, the proposal was to bump it up uh at several decibels to allow something that was uh enforceable and uh still realistic from from a sound standpoint.

Uh Vice Chair Squalia.

I have no position to speak intelligently on this topic at all, but I also wonder if because I was on that trip, some of their uh terrain was hilly.

And so I know that the one house that we went to where they said that they could hear the things, and we did hear a bit of noise out front, there was like a valley and lots of trees.

Um, and that was the one that was the farthest away where we could hear, but the one that was the closest we couldn't hear, and I know that age had a lot to do with it and the you know the type of system and what have you, but I wonder too if just the the terrain itself, you know, like noise going over a valley or something makes a difference there.

So but if we tried to go by what they said from their consultant, I don't know that it would make any sense because we're flat here.

But but then again, I would also think that being a county and being responsible that they would hire a consultant that would have knowledge to be able to do that, if you know what I mean.

But I think they did it for their area and their terrain, not for ours is kind of my point.

Now why they didn't follow their consultants' advice is a little different.

I don't know.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Howley?

Yeah, Mr.

McNamara or Commissioner Squilla, when you went up there, the one data center that you saw that you heard no audio from, did you find out what that uh lot, you know, what what their requirements and ordinance was for that one, or did they have one that regulated it?

It was the same county.

So the the ordinance is the same.

Am I right?

And yeah, they the ordinance was actually adopted uh earlier or excuse me later in 2025 after several years of work on that ordinance.

So the data centers that we saw were actually in place before the ordinance was was adopted, so they do not even apply the standards do not even apply specifically to those those centers uh you know at the time, and they've given a grace period to bring these these data centers into compliance with the new noise ordinance.

So uh many of the centers that we saw, I I would I would assume were built prior to the noise regulations that we're seeing here.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

May I ask Commissioner Halliard if he knows the age of the data center where he visited.

I do not.

Okay.

I did I did not find that out.

Did they happen to say like how long it had been there or how long they had lived there with the problem, anything that made you think it was new?

They moved in in 2016, he said, and then 2019 the data center showed up, and uh that's when everything changed for them.

So then if it showed up in 2019, it's roughly there you go.

Right.

Yeah, and technology has changed so much in that short time.

All right.

Uh Commissioner Gilman, did you have anything?

I I know you had looked at some potentials.

I was just looking at the noise levels and with the distance change that we're recommending, like what could that potentially sound like?

And it's hard to measure that based on where the sound originated, but at this, what was it, the 73?

Um, it was like the sound of a vacuum cleaner, it's about that level of noise, and if we increase that distance as you double it out, it gets less and less.

If I could, so the D V if it was 73 dBA, that would be the sound of a vacuum cleaner.

73 DBC is gonna sound nothing like a vacuum cleaner.

It's gonna be a much lower noise that this could be uh much less per permissible.

Just want to put that out there that we're talking about two different octave uh waves here.

So when we're talking about the volume of sound, you that takes that comes into account as well.

It's it's not the same sound that you're you're getting at the 73 dBA versus TBC.

All right.

Um any other comments?

Uh uh Commissioner uh Taylor.

I would just say why don't we just drop the the optics on a little lower?

Even though you moved it out, you know, it travels, it still travels, wind travels.

I think the woods will block it, but it don't block everything.

I would just say I would drop it down to about I'll say fifty-five to fifty-eight.

So so Mr.

Let me i if we did drop it down to what the recommendation originally was by Prince uh William and we knocked it down to the five of what the recommendation, how does that affect this?

Does it if we find out that it can be complied with, we're good.

If we find out that it can't be complied with, then how do we deal with that issue?

Because we're gonna deal with it whether we keep it at the five where it's at, if if we're talking it's different in Prince William than what it is here, that may not make a difference.

Dropping it, it may make a difference dropping it.

How does that work?

Because it's not going to matter whichever two we do, it seems like to me.

So if we did drop it five, how does that affect us?

What I would say is that would rope into the enforcement.

If we did drop the levels and we find that data centers are exceeding that level and we begin enforcement proceedings against them, though those proceedings would play out, and it may be that if there's repeated issues or it's a common issue at data centers that come into the city, that that might be would probably be a reason for either this body or city council to ask for us to take another look at the ordinance and see if any changes would need to be made at that point.

So I think if I was right, I think originally uh Prince William approved 73 and 68, and the original was 67 and 62.

So are you looking at going with what the recommendation would be for that?

Yeah, just uh that I don't know.

And again, if we if we have to come back and look, but you know, I I don't think it makes right now it doesn't make a difference because we're in the same ballpark with whatever figure we put in there.

So if if if there's a consult, I understand it's different land and and different things, but maybe just noise on my case.

18.

Page 18.

18.

So I think under page 18, 2A was at 73, and the recommendation was sixty-eight, and then it uh on the nighttime uh put six was at sixty-eight and and it was originally they had recommended sixty-two.

But again, I think regardless if we keep it to what's in there or what's it what's down, we we still deal with the same issue.

We don't know.

So why not make it a little more stringent and in my opinion?

But that's that's me.

So, and these are being measured at the facility or at the nearest residence, the way it's written uh that staff recommended was at the receiving property for more than five minutes when measured at any location at or within a residential property boundary in a residential zoning district.

Uh there was some discussion earlier about maybe removing that second line, so that is all boundary lines.

That's the line I wanted to remove too.

So I would uh for for me, if we remove the residential property, it should be all boundaries, correct?

And then I'm like Commissioner Taylor, I would I would be good with dropping again if we don't know, then we might as well go based on what somebody recommended if we find out it's different, then we deal with it.

But we could have the same issue with the 73 and the 68 as it is.

What's the number you're proposing?

Mr.

Chairman.

Just so I'm clear for making these amendments and for the record, the Planning commission is considering a recommendation to change that from 73 DBC to 68 for the daytime, and from 68 to 63 for the nighttime.

For night time is what the the consultant said.

We have nothing to lose.

And again, I mean we'll have to say I guess where it lands.

Should we make that at the nearest residence or the nearest structure?

Completely up to you.

Mr.

Chairman, for drafting purposes, I think it's important to clarify, and what I would recommend is that we remove the at or within a residential property boundary in a residential zoning district as the planning commission is considering, and then essentially replace that to within any adjacent property.

So it would read that the maximum permissible C weighted sound level at the receiving property for more than five minutes when measured at any location within any adjacent property.

That's fine.

Mr.

Tedder, have you are you caught up with everything that I believe so?

Okay.

Any other recommended right now?

Alright.

So we've talked about two different issues.

Um what we'll do is we'll go ahead and um I have one more issue.

Oh we got one more.

Uh uh Vice Chair Squaya has one more.

I'm sorry, and it's not an addition, but I would like staff to speak about we haven't even discussed concerns about wells and septic, and I'm sorry to get so so deep into that at this late stage in the game, but I think it's important to address.

Surrounding wells and septics damage.

So forth the the ordinance requires hookup into a public water system.

So as these facilities would not draw groundwater, the impact to you know, wells and septic would certainly be limited at that point in time based on the fact that there's no groundwater draw that's that's coming for these facilities.

Limited to what though?

Like not eliminated, just limited.

So if it's limited and something could go, like what could happen, and then you know, I don't want to do a million what-ifs, but are there concerns there?

And if so, are are these data centers going to be held to repairing them?

I will defer to Mr.

Jurgens, our water expert.

And while he's coming down, are you are we saying that they should also connect into this the city sewage system as well?

Well, I'm not saying anything.

So, the septic question is very easy first.

Uh at the distance we're talking the structure of any of these centers being away from the property line, they will not have any impacts on anybody's septic system.

That's simple.

The impacts on wells are typically measured based on groundwater withdrawal, which is the point that uh Mr.

McNamara was making in that they are not withdrawing groundwater, then they would not have be withdrawing or pulling water to their location from anybody else's well.

So they should not have any impacts on anybody else's well uh as well.

That doesn't sound right, but um and also the impacts of construction, again, because the facilities being constructed are a long way from property lines, that would significantly minimize the potential for any impact of the construction process itself on adjacent wells.

It's hard to speak to because you never know how deep a residential well will be.

I've seen some that are 20 feet deep, I've seen others that are several hundred feet deep.

So the different impact potentials of the construction just vary greatly with the site, but the distances make it significantly uh reduced potential, and it would not be withdrawing any groundwater.

Therefore, the volume of the aquifer would not be affected, the water quality and the water movement within the aquifer would not be affected.

I think my concern is surrounding the idea that you know we're making a recommendation, but it's uh a far distance from what where we started tonight, and so if council receives this and changes what they think the distance should be and and ultimately makes that decision, what are we then opening our citizens up to who have septic systems for example?

Again, septic systems wouldn't be a problem, they wouldn't be affected.

The distances that affect septic systems are are less than a hundred feet, uh, really closer to ten or fifteen feet.

Okay.

As far as the wells, it really depends on how deep the water is or deep the well is, but um when wells when you do monitoring wells to see the impact of it of our wells, for example, where we're withdrawing three and a half million gallons per day total across our seven wells, those monitoring wells are usually less than a hundred feet.

The furthest one we have is 1,500 feet away from our deep water wells to measure the impact on the aquifer.

So, uh if and and ours are those are deep water wells and measuring long-term impacts, it's not measuring short-term, and it's based on the impacts of the withdrawal that we make.

So the this won't have an effect on the groundwater volume again because it's not withdrawing any, or on the water quality because it's not withdrawing that groundwater.

The only potential impact you have is a direct impact of the construction that happens, and that's you know, that's a short-term impact.

And again, that's not deep enough to affect the groundwater quality, or the volume.

So the the I don't want to stand here and say never, but the odds of something happening to groundwater quality in wells, uh in the private wells in the surrounding area, uh, is really tiny.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Taylor.

Um would a runoff from the short uh from the scratcher, um, the neighboring things.

So I'm not in the stormwater management business, but it no, because it would the stormwater would have to be designed to meet the city's criteria for for drainage, and it wouldn't it would not therefore as long as it meets that criteria, it should not affect have any effects on adjacent uh systems.

Commissioner Williams.

Uh so let me ask one quick one.

If they were to worry about our runoff questions, if the facility was required to hook into city water and city sewage, would that rectify that issue by having runoffs going into the city sewage?

So runoff can't go into the city sewer system, stormwater and sanitary are completely separate.

Not runoff, but used water from the facilities cooling systems.

So, most I I without knowing how they design their system and what their water that they have to discharge would be, it would be very likely they would have to discharge to the city's wastewater system.

Okay.

But but I I don't again I I don't know how much runoff each individual proposal would be created or how much wastewater each individual proposal would be creating.

So I can't make a cart bonch response.

But if their volume is very high, they would either have to meet the health department on site wastewater treatment criteria or extend city sewer.

Those really are the two legal alternatives that they have available.

The on-site wastewater systems are managed by the health department.

The city has zero jurisdiction on those.

I think we gotta be I think we need to be careful in there.

I mean Ventrus has already got a large area that's contaminated from the fly ash, and they the folks there can't use their wells anymore, i.e.

my parents, but um yeah, so I think you I don't know if that's something that we should explore on this.

Um, I know we've talked quite a bit and in about this.

Um any further discussion.

All right, so this time uh we'll go ahead and and let's let's take action on the these items.

Um this time what I'll do uh Mr.

Boswick, if you could read into the record again um item number five, and we'll deal with that one, and then once we we've clarified that, then we'll go to item number six.

I'll have you reread that into the record as well.

Uh so if you can go ahead and read item number five back into the record.

Yes.

The item is PLN-TXT-2026-001.

The project is data centers.

The proposal is an ordinance amending appendix A of the Chesapeake City Code entitled zoning.

Article 7, section 7-602, Article 8, sections 8-601, and 8-602.

Article 9, section 9-502, article 12, section 12-405, and enacting our Article 13, Section 13-3400 through 13-3407 to designate data centers as a conditional use in industrial zoning districts and the Finterest Airfield Overlay District, provided certain requirements are met.

Thank you.

With all the change, Mr.

Chair, I move up, uh, recommending approval of that item with the changes that Mr.

Titter is going to read, Mr.

Chair.

If I could suggest a friendly amendment to that motion, I believe the um video recording and the minutes are going to capture all of the changes, and it would be appropriate for the chair to entertain a motion to approve the ordinance version dated June 17, 2026, with the amendments discussed during the public hearing tonight.

So moved.

Alright.

So we have a motion by Vice Chair Squalia.

We have a what is the setback we're voting on?

Are we heard a thousand?

We've heard uh 1320 feet away.

What's the I think the I think the last one we were at was 1320.

1320.

Okay.

Is that correct, Mr.

Tetter?

And a half a mile.

That is what I currently have in the draft.

I've been redlining during the discussion.

That's a quarter mile.

1320 is a quarter mile.

Yeah, but we did that.

That as a setback and then a half a mile from a residential structure.

Existing residential.

Okay.

Well, not just residential though.

Hospital and thank you.

Yeah, yeah, everything.

Right, right.

All right.

So uh we had a second by the Commissioner Williams.

Did you say?

Okay.

So we have a motion uh made by Vice Chair Squalia and a second by Commissioner Williams.

Uh prepare to vote.

Please vote.

Mr.

Boswick, please record the vote.

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

All right, Mr.

Boswick, if you would read item number six back into the record as well.

Yes, sir.

The item is PLN-COMP-2026-002.

The project is data centers.

The proposal is a proposed amendment to the adopted Chesapeake comprehensive plan to adopt a data center policy in the appendix to provide guidance for data center development.

Thank you.

Do we have a motion?

Vice Chair Squalia.

Mr.

Chair, I move to recommend approval with the following changes.

Under the economic development data center section, immediately after the paragraph that encourages data centers as an economic development opportunity, I'd like to add protection of existing communities.

Data center development shall be planned and cited to protect existing residential neighborhoods, agricultural operations, schools, parks, and environmentally sensitive areas from adverse impacts, including noise, lighting, traffic, water demand, visual impacts, and utility infrastructure.

Immediately after that paragraph, I'd like to add preferred locations.

Data centers should be encouraged within existing industrial areas and locations with adequate infrastructure and should avoid conflicts with established residential and agricultural communities whenever feasible.

Under the land use compatibility policies, I'd like to add compatible compatibility data centers shall be designed to be compatible with surrounding land uses through appropriate setbacks, buffering, landscaping, architectural design, and operational standards under infrastructure policies.

I'd like to add infrastructure capacity.

Approval of data centers should be based on demonstrated availability of adequate electric water, wastewater, transportation, and emergency service capacity without adversely affecting existing residents or businesses.

And number five, under public facilities or public safety, add accessory infrastructure.

Accessory facilities, including substations, battery energy storage systems, backup generators, cooling equipment, and other support infrastructure should be designed and operated to minimize impacts on surrounding properties and protect public health and safety.

And finally, at the end of that data center section, the city shall periodically review and update data center policies and regulations as technology, industry standards, and best practices evolve to ensure continued protection of residents and preservation of Chesapeake's rural character.

Got all that, Mr.

Mr.

Tetter.

That's quite a bit.

All right.

So we we've got a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All right.

So we have a motion by Vice Chair Squelia.

We have a second by Commissioner Gilman.

Please prepare to vote.

Please vote.

Mr.

Boswick, please record the vote.

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

Thank you.

All right, this time we have uh the director's items, Mr.

McMahon.

Do you have any items to bring up at this time?

I actually do.

So just a reminder to the commission and announcement to the public that we will be having a plan commission retreat in two weeks.

That will take place on July 22nd from 5 to 8 o'clock.

Uh the location of the retreat will be in the apex room at the 555 building in Summit Point.

That's at Bel Air Av.

Uh look forward to seeing everyone there.

So just real quick, because on my paper, I've got 5 30.

So we're doing five.

Are we doing 5 30?

I had 5 o'clock, but Mr.

Chair, if you'd like to change that, we can certainly do that.

I guess uh would everybody rather do 5 5 30 or 5?

Either way.

All right.

Then five o'clock it is.

That's what you've announced.

So again, we'll we'll have that uh uh that that that meeting uh in two weeks.

Uh is there any other unfinished or new business to be brought up for the good of the commission?

And if there's no business to consider or no further business to consider, the meeting stands adjourned at 10 30 p.m., that's what we're doing.

I don't know.

And we want to we were on the way.

Ik ben Well, we'll do it.

La situación Voilà The song is felt with the rap with me.