Good morning, everyone, and thank you, Planning Commissioners and Staff for your participation today.

My name is John Colston, and I'm the chair of Virginia Beach Planning Commission.

Welcome to the September 9th informal session of the Virginia Beach Planning Commission.

All this meeting to order.

Um Caitlin, you have anything for us?

Just a couple quick things.

Um I just discussed having a retreat following the October hearing, so I just wanted an update from this group.

My understanding that Commissioner Anderson and then Commissioner Mott were working on that.

So if we could get an update on that to make sure you know we plan accordingly, um like that.

Then a reminder, I know we're a little early, but your November meeting is on the second Thursday, not the second Wednesday due to Veterans Day.

So just gonna I'll remind you again next month.

Um, and then the other thing, and Tori can speak to it a little bit more, but I wanted to touch on you've got two um proposed versions of amendments to your policies and procedures.

Um as staff had discussed, and I think we've discussed it informally here, um, but that I asked Tori to include for your consideration is that when someone signs up to represent a group, it's somewhat self-explanatory when you're representing an HOA or some organization.

Um, but I had some clarifying language proposed to say if you're representing a group of people, you need to um specifically identify what individuals you are representing.

That way we make sure that that person then doesn't sign up to speak as well.

I think we had that come up at one meeting, so that was just something for your consideration.

May I ask, is that the only difference between these two versions?

Well, since I'm the author of the other version, I don't object to what you're saying.

So can we simplify our proceedings by dispensing with this other one?

The one that you are suggesting if that's the bond the bodies will, that's fine.

I was just going to bring up to you that um uh commissioner camps had also quoted additional language for consideration, so I'm gonna have um those uh printed out for you as well for you to see with the the document that you're considering.

Apart from what Tori just said, which I appreciate.

Is that okay?

You cannot have to decide between two things, but just work from one of them.

Uh so the one Caitlin of these two, one of them is like smaller font.

Are we working from the bigger font one?

Is that yours?

Yes.

Okay, so we can page three, the language for clarifying that.

So we can discard the one that has the gray bar on the right side.

All right, thank you.

And that's all I had here.

Okay.

Good morning, good morning.

While we're waiting, if you wanted that update, uh Commissioner Anderson and myself uh had not had an opportunity to find uh a time that would be work for both of us to meet.

So we're planning on meeting after he gets back from his vacation.

Reason why it's not here, so we can have an update on that, but we did decide that it should only be an hour.

Commissioner Anderson retreat.

Oh yeah, just commissioner Anderson just sent me a text saying he's thinking of us, but he's walking in historic Prague at the moment.

What a guy.

Okay, we're ready to move on.

All right now item one.

This was the request for a subdivision various in section 4.4B and D of the subdivision regulations to allow the creation of two lots that are deficient in lot width, street line frontage and lack of direct access to a public street.

The subject properties are zone AG1 and AG2 and have access to existing private ingress egress easements along Dolly Road and Gun Bridge Road.

Although the properties are shown on the recorded plats, the plats were not signed by the Princess Anne County planning director prior to recordation, as was required at that time.

Therefore, the properties are considered to be improperly subdivided by D.

The applicant is proposing to vacate the interior lot lines and create two new lots identified as lot X-1 and lot A-1 in order to legally establish the lots for future sale.

Both proposed lots exceed the minimum one acre lot area requirement.

However, neither meets the required 150-foot width or 120-foot street line frontage.

Additionally, neither lot has direct access to a public sheet street.

Therefore, a subdivision variance is required.

Any future residential development will also be subject to the AG1 and AG2 requirements, including the one acre minimum lot area and the density limitations.

Staff finds the requested variants acceptable and believes the proposed resubdivision will help correct an apparent historical subdivision issue that has existed for decades.

The request is also generally consistent with the comprehensive plan as a proposal maintains the rule and agricultural architect our agricultural character of the area.

It does not extend urban services into the rural area and does not increase development intensity beyond what is complemented by the comprehensive plan.

Staff finds the variance meets the criteria of section 9.3.

Strict application of regulations would create an undue hardship due to the existing configuration and historical circumstances of the property.

Staff does not anticipate the variants being detrimental to adjacent property owners or adversely adversely affect the character of the surrounding area.

I will say that the fire marshal's office did review this request, and they require that fire access will need to comply with the fire code requirements, and we've added condition six to address this.

The Virginia Department of Health also reviewed and indicated that the proposed lots are not residential building sites until approval is obtained for on-site signage disposal systems and private wells.