Loading...
BZA Minutes 03 13 2023March 13, 2023 Regular Meeting Pittsylvania County Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting March 13, 2023 VIRGINIA: The Regular Meeting of the Pittsylvania County Board of Zoning Appeals was held on March 13, 2023, in the Board Meeting Room, 39 Bank Street, SE, Chatham, Virginia. Chairman R. Allan Easley, called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. The following members were present: Attendee Name Title Status Arrived R. Allan Easley Chairman Present 5:30 PM Ronald E. Merricks Vice-Chairman Present 5:28 PM Ryland Brumfield Board Member Present 5:27 PM Joseph A. Craddock Board Member Present 5:29 PM Ann Deering Board Member Present 5:27 PM Hershel Stone Board Member Present 5:28 PM Carroll Yeaman Board Member Present 5:27 PM APPROVAL OF AGENDA Upon motion of Mr. Merricks, seconded by Mr. Stone, and by a unanimous vote, the agenda was approved as presented. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Ronald E. Merricks, Carroll Yeaman SECONDER: Hershel Stone, Board Member AYES: Easley, Merricks, Brumfield, Craddock, Deering, Stone, Yeaman APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. BZA Minutes 02132023 Upon motion of Mr. Craddock, seconded by Mr. Stone, and by a unanimous vote, the minutes were approved as presented. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Joseph A. Craddock, Board Member SECONDER: Hershel Stone, Board Member AYES: Easley, Merricks, Brumfield, Craddock, Deering, Stone, Yeaman OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS Mrs. Ragsdale reported there will be no meeting in April. Mrs. Ragsdale reminded the board of the bimonthly Zoning Ordinance Update workshop that will be held on Wednesday, April 12th 5:30. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT There was no Chairman's report. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public Hearing: CaseS-23-001 Appalachian Power Company; Special Use Permit for Public Utilities (Transmission Line) The zoning precepts were read by Mr. Easley to open the public hearing at 6:04 p.m. Mrs. Ragsdale, Director of Community Development, reported that Appalachian Power Company has petitioned for a Special Use Permit on 0.34 acres, located in the Dan River Election District to allow for public utilities. Craig Pritt represented the case. There was no opposition to the case. Mr. Easley closed the public hearing at 6:06 p.m. A motion was made by Mr. Merricks, seconded by Mrs. Deering, that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the Special Use Permit. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Ronald E. Merricks, Vice-Chairman SECONDER: Ann Deering, Board Member AYES: Easley, Merricks, Brumfield, Craddock, Deering, Stone, Yeaman 2. Public Hearing: CaseS-23-002 Hillandale Solar, LLC; Special Use Permit for a Utility Scale Solar Energy Facility. Mr. Easley opened the public hearing at 6:08 p.m. Mrs. Ragsdale, Director of Community Development reported that Hillandale Solar, LLC has petitioned for a Special Use Permit on 1,555.39 acres, located on State Road 639/Honeybee Road, State Road 761/Straightstone Road, State Road 603/Wyatts Road, State Road 668/Cody Road, State Road 669/Melon Road located in the Banister and Staunton River Election Districts to allow for a utility scale solar facility. Dan Michaud, a project developer with Strata Clean Energy, represented the petition and presented a power point presentation. He stated this project will be 102 megawatts in a remote part of the county. Mr. Michaud said Strata operates and maintains 35 solar facilities under contract with Dominion and is currently building 10 projects for Dominion. He stated this project is twelve (12) parcels with twenty-three (23) landowners and just over 1,500 acres. He said they are proposing to install panels on about 450 acres, the rest of the acreage will be used as landscape buffers, stormwater management facilities and preserved open space. Mr. Michaud said that before finalizing the application, project information was sent out to adjacent property owners for their open house at the Hurt-Motley Community Center and additional project information was sent out in January 2023. He stated this project will benefit Pittsylvania County in several ways, including increasing local revenues, siting agreement payments, rollback & increased property taxes. He stated that it virtually uses no county services, will create jobs during construction, and will provide opportunities for local service providers, suppliers, and vendors. Mr. Michaud stated that Strata entered into a siting agreement with the county and the county will receive nine (9) million dollars over the lifetime of the project, with 20% paid the first year of operation. He said they have plenty of land to ensure that setbacks and vegetative screening is fully in compliance with the county's solar zoning ordinance. He stated this is a very well-hidden site, most properties have mature timber, 25' or higher and these areas will be preserved to use as existing buffers. He also stated the substation will be located directly below the transmission line, so there will be no need to develop new connecting transmission lines. He said that staff recommended approval with 19 conditions which they fully support. Mr. Michaud asked the board members if they had any questions. Mr. Easley asked about vegetation that is currently there, stating there are lots of pine trees already there and he wanted to know if they will remain, Mr. Michaud stated that anything will remain that is worth keeping for the vegetative buffer. He said the minimum buffer will be 100' as listed in the ordinance and the conditions agreed upon. Mr. Stone asked what would happen if the LLC went under? He stated that he knows that a bond is in place to secure clean-up, but wanted to know the amount of the bond and what percentage would be used for clean-up. Mr. Michaud stated the bond is based on a third-party engineer decommissioning estimate and the bond posted for the full value estimate of decommissioning at a future time and they are revised every five years. Mr. Merricks asked who will own this solar project. Mr. Michaud said that Strata currently owns this project, they will build and operate themselves and sell the power under a power purchase agreement. He said they have sold projects to Dominion. Mr. Brumfield asked about a parcel shown on the map before you get to Wyatt's Road. Louis Iannone stated that this is a tiny parcel that will have a transmission line, so it has to be posted as well according to the ordinance. Mr. Easley called on the residents who signed up to speak. Chuck Angier stated that the county already has 18,500 acres in solar development. He asked that the county uses discretion when considering this case and stated that it can be denied even if all conditions are met. Alan Casper stated he has grave concerns about this solar project. He stated he is the assistant chief of the fire department that is the first due responding agency to this project and the fire and rescue commissioner for the Banister District. He said he is also a senior radiation control technician at a nuclear manufacturing facility, so he knows a lot about health and safety. Mr. Casper stated the Board of Supervisors has a pending ordinance change directly affecting these solar farms, but it will not affect this project as it will be grandfathered in. He stated that the reason for the ordinance change is because of their concerns, we do not need to let this slide under the radar. He stated he has done research and about 80% of solar panels are manufactured in China, they have the potential to leech chemicals into the groundwater over the years. Mr. Casper stated the fire department that services this area has two engines, a tanker and a brush truck, and this solar farm is over 1,000 acres. If this project is approved, it would put the citizens of the Banister and Staunton River Districts at risk. Joel Cathey encouraged the county to pass this Special Use Permit, stating it's a great way for the county to get funds without consuming a lot of county services. He said the project is well shielded, so it will not be seen very easily. Barbara Dalton said her family farm will be involved in this solar project and thinks Strata has done a wonderful job presenting their plans. She said this project is in a remote area, it is not being used for agricultural uses, nothing has ever been grown on the land that is in this project except for pine trees and they're not doing all that great doing that, she is in support of this project. James Mashburn said a family cemetery is located on his property where his ancestors fought to save this land that he lives on and the adjoining properties surrounding them. He has grandchildren living on the property and he is concerned about what this project will do to the land in the long term. He said he was approached with a fairly large sum of money about running a line through his property and he said no regarding the future of his grandchildren. He said he hopes this board will be an advocate for the families that do not want to be in an industrial area, in fact they live there so they don't have to be in an industrial area. Sherry Queener stated she owns land in the vicinity of this project, and she is in support of this project. She said it will allow for the county to have extra revenue and it will be so remote that you will not be able to see it. Cindy Reynolds owns land in this district, and she feels that it will benefit the county. She said she has lived there for 59 years, and many people can't say that. She said her children and grandchildren will inherit the land since it is a family farm and has been in the family for 100 years, so she feels this will be a benefit to our community and to our family. Lisa Kelley is a landowner in this project, and she stated this will be a good use for it as nothing grows on it. She said she hopes this project is approved. Linda Rutledge is a landowner and is in favor of the project. She stated there is not a lot grown on it, they do not get hardly any income from it, this will bring in extra money. Becky Robertson's family owns property that is under a lease agreement to study the feasibility of a solar panel project and she supports the project. She said fossil fuels are finite and will not last forever, in addition they release harmful gases polluting our environment. She said the sun is a sustainable source of energy to power homes and businesses if solar panels are used to harvest that energy. She also stated that solar panels do not cause greenhouse gases, in addition, the panels are silent and space-saving, this can lessen the strain on our electrical grid. She said this would allow our country to become more independent by reducing dependence on foreign oil and fuels. She stated that currently the land she owns is wet and rocky and only good for growing pine trees which take 30 - 40 years to reap any monetary value. She said that solar panels will provide yearly rent money for the landowners which will aid them in paying real estate taxes. She also stated the solar panels creating electricity should lessen the strain on the electrical grid, solar energy generated should help reduce energy bills for all consumers, she is 100 % in favor of this project. Ms. Robertson was the last person to speak. Mr. Easley called Mr. Michaud back to answer any questions and address any concerns. He stated as far as the eye sores, he thinks some of the earlier projects in the Commonwealth weren't put in the best locations. He said he has seen lots of solar projects and he thinks this is one of the best locations, given the remote area, and their ability to hide the panels from view because of the mature vegetation that they can maintain in place 100-foot vegetative buffers. He stated that solar panels do not leach chemicals, there is nothing liquid, the facilities have steel foundations, electrical equipment mounted on top and then some concrete was necessary for substation equipment, nothing is particularly different about solar panel equipment design and construction from other types of electrical facility design and construction. He said as far as emergency response goes, the National Fire Protection Agency has training specifically for solar, so this is fairly well understood. They are also required to do annual Fire and Rescue training with first responders as part of their permit conditions and these are very quiet facilities, there are no air emissions, he would not characterize it as creating an industrial area, particularly in this location where they are planning to install this project if it is the will of this board tonight to approve the permit. There were no further questions or comments from the audience or the board. Mr. Easley closed the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. Comments from the board were next. Mr. Brumfield stated he drove down and looked at the properties. He stated it is a remote area of the county. He said as he drove through the county, he understands the solar facilities that are very visible and there is a lot of opposition against those, but we do have some that are shielded very well with the landscaping. He stated he is in favor of this project, but if the board feels we need to go further with the setbacks or further with the screening to better shield the panels from view, he could support that also. Mr. Easley agreed with Mr. Brumfield saying we have 1,500 acres and this project will be in the neighborhood of 450 acres of actual panels . He stated that several folks spoke stating it is a remote area that's good and bad from a safety point of view for a firefighter, I understand. As far as looking at it from the picture of the county looking at the remoteness, or visual aspect he will say it's in as good a location that it can be if the board has the opinion to approve it. He said there are also 19 conditions that have been recommended by staff, he recommended that if they read a positive motion, that these 19 conditions be included in that motion. Mr. Merricks said he rode out to look at the project and he certainly understands the comments tonight, both for and against. He said he is glad to know that the Board of Supervisors have finally decided to do something because we've got too much of our land in solar panels, that's just his personal opinion. He cannot vote his personal opinion, however, when he goes out to look at the farm and the trees and it's pretty out there and people want to go out there to get away from everything, that is the place to go. But, with that being said, he said we have an obligation to find adverse effects that can be mitigated through conditions. He said that when it gets to this level, it's very tough to make those decisions and he hard Mr. Angier and he certainly understands that at the same time solar is with us, it's going to be with us, personally he would like to see it benefit the consumer more than it does the big companies, if he could see it in his pocketbook, he might like it better, but at the same time, he hasn't seen that happen, nor has he seen any dollars coming into the county yet. He said with that being said, given the location, he can probably see a positive motion. Mr. Easley asked if there were any other comments. Mr. Brumfield said that when one drives down Straightstone Road and they go by Cedar Forest Place, it's a very nice place and you drive a little farther and there is a mill on the left, he definitely does not want to do anything that would affect the appearance of that area and that is why he brought up the setbacks, if the board feels that the setbacks from the road that concerns him the most is Straighstone Road, if the board feels the setbacks are back far enough from that road and the shielding will be thick enough, then he would support a favorable motion. Mr. Easley asked if he was recommending that the setbacks be moved back further. Mr. Brumfield is just looking for views from other members of the board, he is okay with that but maybe someone on the board feels a little different, but he is in favor of the project. Let's just make sure that the screening and the setbacks are right. Mr. Craddock says the information in the packet the scale of the information is so large it's hard to tell exactly where this place Mr. Brumfield is talking about is on the map, maybe if we ask the folks from Strata to clarify what exactly it looks like in the exact location. Mr. Easley asked if someone from Strata could show how far the actual setback is off Straightstone Road, where the solar panels would begin. Dan Michaud and Chris Blanco presented a large map to the board. Mrs. Ragsdale asked to repeat what was said since the audience could not hear. Mr. Brumfield asked to see the view shed of when one is driving down Straightstone Road in the area of Cedar Forest. He said he wanted to see what would be seen if someone is driving down the road, if the screening is done correctly, the view of the solar panels should be blocked, that's what he was concerned about. Mr. Michaud stated that this was a visual representation of a view shed technical analysis they had done by a third-party engineering firm, the red areas are where the project is 40 to 50 % of the solar panels are visible for that location, this is with the preserved vegetative screening. He said if you look over in the same location that was just discussed, there is zero visibility from that vantage point with the screening in place. Mr. Brumfield said it looks like if you go down Honeybee Road you can see a little bit of the solar panels. Mr. Michaud said if you look over in the Northeast where it's an off-white color on the map, you get into the up to 10 % from that location, the next map is what it looks like no screening, and he also shows screening required by our ordinance that is listed in the 19 conditions which are being proposed as a preserved vegetative buffer. Mr. Brumfield stated that answered his question. A motion was made by Mr. Brumfield, seconded by Mr. Craddock that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the Special Use Permit with the 19 conditions recommended by staff. 1. Site Development Plan; Location. All solar panels and other above- ground equipment will be located within the “Project Area” shown on the Conceptual Site Plan included with the SUP application. All Site Plan requirements of Section 35-141 must be met before permits are issued. 2. Height. Except for the collection yard and substation or otherwise as required by applicable building code, the maximum height of the solar panels and other above - ground equipment will be 15 feet. 3. Setbacks. Except for fencing and any pole mounted electronic lines, consistent with the County ordinance, all above-ground equipment shall meet the setback requirements set forth in Section 35-141 (D). No setbacks are required between the parcels lines of parcels that are part of a single Project. No setbacks are required between the parcels lines of parcels that are part of a single Project. 4. Fencing. Fencing for the Project will be standard chain- link and at least 6 feet high. The Applicant shall maintain the fence for the life of the Project. 5. Landscaping. Applicant will comply with Section 35-121 Fencing - Screening. At the perimeter locations, the setback will include a minimum 100-foot-wide landscaped area comprised of any existing vegetation supplemented as needed with a staggered row of planted trees and large shrubs. All rows of planted vegetation shall be evergreen plantings of varieties native or adaptable to the region, with one (1) row consisting of a variety expected to reach a minimum height of twenty- five (25) feet and the remaining rows of varieties designed to reach at least fifteen (15) feet in height at maturity. All evergreens shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height at time of planting. Existing vegetation shall be maintained and supplemented with new plantings as needed to maintain required screening. Prior to construction and site plan approval, a landscaping maintenance plan will be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval, which shall provide for the posting of a bond or other surety in an amount sufficient to ensure that the plantings are successfully established, and the landscaping is maintained or replaced during the life of the Project. Landscape renderings or simulations shall be sealed by a registered landscape architect. 6. Construction Management and Mitigation. Prior to construction, the Applicant shall prepare and submit to the Zoning Administrator a construction management plan to address traffic control methods, site access, fencing, lighting, mitigation of construction operations, and hours of construction activity. 7. Viewshed Protection. A Viewshed Protection Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of permits, identifying appropriate measures that will be taken to protect the viewshed surrounding the project during construction. 8. Road Repairs. All public and private roads must remain open during construction. Any damage to roads caused by construction will be promptly repaired to preconstruction conditions and/or VDOT standards where deemed necessary. 9. Erosion and Sediment Control. Prior to construction, an approved erosion and sediment control plan will be implemented for the entire Project, and an erosion and sediment control bond will be provided. 10. Stormwater Management. Prior to construction, a Virginia Stormwater Management Program Permit from the Virginia DEQ will be obtained for the Project, including an approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. 11. Operational Noise and Electrical Interference. The Project will comply with all applicable County requirements for noise and shall not generate or create electrical interruptions or interference with existing electrical or electronic uses. 12. Operational Light. Fixed lighting at the perimeter of the Project will be limited to gates and will be shielded/downward facing to minimize light spillage and shall be motion-activated. 13. Compliance. The project shall be designed, constructed, and tested to meet all applicable local, state, and federal standards. 14. Decommissioning. In accordance with Section 35-141(E), the applicant shall completely decommission the facility within 12 months, if the facility ceases to generate electricity for a continuous period of 12 months, including all solar collectors, cabling, electrical components, fencing and any other associated equipment, facilities, and structures. Prior to construction and approval of the entire site plan, a decommissioning plan will be submitted to the Zoning Administrator, which shall provide for the posting of a bond or other surety acceptable to the County in the amount of the decommissioning costs, not including salvage value, for the Project. 15. Start of construction. The SUP will expire unless construction of the entire Project is commenced within 3 years of the date of issuance of the SUP. 16. Survival. So long as the Project is operated in conformance with these conditions, the SUP shall continue for the life of the Project. 17. Comply with all DEQ regulations regarding nonpoint source pollutants. Chemical sprays used in weed control shall comply with DEQ regulations. 18. Fire and Rescue Training. The applicant shall provide annual training to the local fire department regarding solar energy facilities. 19. Ordinance Compliance. The project shall remain in compliance with all other applicable requirements of the Pittsylvania County Code § 35-141(D), § 35-141(E), and § 35-141(F) not specifically stated in the conditions of this Special Use Permit. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Ryland Brumfield, Board Member SECONDER: Joseph A. Craddock, Board Member AYES: Easley, Merricks, Brumfield, Craddock, Deering, Stone, Yeaman 3. Public Hearing: CaseS-22-024; Special Use Permit for a Marina and a Public Garage. The board took a 10-minute break from 7:02 pm - 7:12 pm. Mr. Easley opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Mrs. Ragsdale, Director of Community Development, reported that The Dock at SML, LLC, petitioned for a Special Use Permit on 23.25 acres, located in the Callands-Gretna Election District to allow for a marina, and a public garage. On February 7, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended by a 5-2 vote with opposition that the petitioners be granted with the following conditions: 1. The applicant and residents on Locust Lane must enter into a road maintenance agreement. 2. Locust Lane cannot be utilized as a construction entrance for any future construction plans. 3. Must remain in compliance with all applicable Virginia Department of Health regulations. 4. Must remain in compliance with AEP regulations. The staff summary is enclosed in the board packet. Mr. Chairman, Jeff Wils on with the Dock at SML is here to represent the petition. Jeff Wilson-Hello, my name is Jeff Wilson with the ownership group of the Dock at Smith Mountain Lake so good evening and thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice-Chairman and board members and County staff, we appreciate the time and hearing this request tonight. You'll find our case on page 663 of your packet. We are here to request your approval on our marina property to become a legal conforming use as a marina under the current RPD zoning. The Dock has been a commercial marina property since 1966. It was one of the first, if not the first marina on Smith Mountain Lake. As a marina, we fall under the bounds and jurisdiction of AEP, in providing public access to Smith Mountain Lake. Referring to the slide in your handouts, page 3, which outlined the goals of AEP's Shoreline Management Plan. These goals help document the provision of public access to Smith Mountain Lake. I'll refer you to 2 sections seen in your handout and on the slides, section 1.3.4 AEP's Shoreline Management Plan has the goal of enhancing recreational opportunities by considering boating densities and navigation and maximizing available use of project waters. Section 1.3.8 goal of the Shoreline Management plan is striving for a balance that supports local economic interest yet protects environmental and recreational resources that allow the public to enjoy these interests and resources. Currently we are grand fathered in as a legal non-conforming use, even though it has been a commercial marina since 1966, and the Pittsylvania County Zoning Ordinance didn't begin until 1991.Staff has made the determination in order to do any waterfront improvements, modifications or to add boat storage, we must have a special use permit. In essence, any expansion or modification to the marina would require becoming a legal conforming use, meaning that if we simply desire to add, modify or improve one single boat slip, this county determination says that a permit is required. So, this case is not specifically about adding more boat slips, boat storage to the site, at the base level this is a request for the marina, that has been a marina for almost 60 years, continue to be a marina, under a legal conforming use with RPD zoning. So, we are thankful to be at this stage of the process, county staff recommended approval, planning commission recommended approval, we are requesting your approval for our application as submitted with an added component. In response to the planning commission, and our neighbors’ concerns, that we, the Dock at Smith Mountain Lake, will take full responsibility of maintaining the private drive Locust Lane through a declaration of road maintenance. We will bear the burden, upkeep and maintenance of this private access road within our property boundary up to the entrance and access to the dock at Smith Mountain Lake, this will be a formally recorded declaration of road maintenance. It would fully satisfy the conditions proposed by the Planning Commission and more than fully addressed concerns from neighboring property owners and or not using the private drive as a construction entrance, with this road maintenance declaration, we will maintain the private drive Locust Lane up to our entrance and access point for the Dock at Smith Mountain Lake. For a visual reference I would refer you to look at your slides & handouts, pages 5 & 6, this displays travel up Smith Mountain Road to Locust Lane to access the entry point of our property, just to give reference on this display is the private drive Locust Lane, turn down Locust Lane to the access point for the Dock at Smith Mountain Lake. In summary we are a marina, we have been a marina since 1966. There are many things in place to oversee marina operations from AEP, to VDH, to county building code and permitting all within the framework of providing public access to Smith Mountain Lake. We will certainly remain in compliance with VDH and AEP. In Regard to VDH we have a certificate to operate and are continuously working with them in regard to our development plans moving forward. You'll see the VDH documentation on page 700 of your county staff packet. In regard to AEP, AEP has stated Appalachian has reviewed preliminary plans for the development of dock structures along the shoreline associated with the dock at Smith Mountain Lake and has determined that the existing and proposed uses are consistent with the classifications established by the Shoreline Management Program. Appalachian notes that commercial uses are currently established and that the existing dock structures are currently associated with an established commercial use. Appalachian does not object to efforts to seek Pittsylvania County approval for expansion. Appalachian considers the shoreline adjacent to the subject property to be appropriate for high density commercial uses. AEP documentation can be found on page 701 & 702 in the county staff packet. We have gone above and beyond responding to county staff, neighboring property owners and done so on many components not directly related to this SUP application. So, we are asking for you the Board of Zoning Appeals to approve this request and ask specifically the application be approved with the following conditions: 1. The applicant will record a Declaration of Road Maintenance for Locust Lane, from Smith Mountain Road up to entrance of The Dock at Smith Mountain Lake. 2. Applicant must remain in compliance with all applicable Virginia Department of Health regulations. 3. Applicant must remain in compliance with all applicable AEP regulations. I'll reserve the remainder of my time for any questions or follow-up as needed. Thank you. Mr. Easley-any questions for the applicant, comments? Ronald Merricks-I guess I'm just kind of asking questions. Have you had any contact with the Department of Wildlife Resources regarding the plan expansion? Jeff Wilson- Yes, for the components that have their jurisdiction, so they have been involved in some of the items that affect the code that the marina is situated in, so we've worked with them and actually adding an additional no wake buoy to that area which as a marina operators are responsible for, o we had one previously, worked with those jurisdictions TLAC and otherwise to add an additional no wake buoy. Ronald Merricks- If I understand the plan is to put a 120-boat dry storage unit, is that correct? Jeff Wilson - Dry stack boat storage? Ronald Merricks- Right. What statistical information did you all use to come up with that number 120? Did you have any kind of given the narrowness of cove, and if I read it right, that will be a total of 197 boat slips with the additions and the ones the take aways and the 120 storage, where did you get that number? Jeff Wilson - Various components, it's a sort of third-party review for civil engineers looking at the space but there's other jurisdictions involved that control the density and capacity. So, AEP for one is looking at all the density and capacity uses based on the size of that cove and they go through some very sophisticated calculations based on the size of the cove based on the amount of shoreline for our property, this is sort of a maximum density AEP can regulate, combined VDH has their own regulations on number of slips and their own calculations for number of slips in the water, and or dry stack storage boat slips that could sort of fill the space at the dock at Smith Mountain Lake has on shoreline. Ronald Merricks - Okay. How many parking spaces are you all planning to have? Jeff Wilson - Well, the conceptual plan has a great deal of parking on the site, some of those are combined for potential buy right uses, some of them is a part of the special use permitting and so they were, they saying the civil engineer side of site planning we're calculating a number based on those numbers, we were just backing into for the boat storage and the marina operations and the west slips. Ronald Merricks - So all the boats in dry storage that they use, are they privately owned, rented, for sale, or a combination of all three? Jeff Wilson - the boats in the dry stack storage Ronald Merricks - are they going to be privately owned boats, or they going to be rental boats, are they going to be boats for sale or what? Jeff Wilson - Privately owned boats for storage Ronald Merricks - Privately owned, no rentals. Jeff Wilson - I'm not sure when, we do have rental boats at the facility, some of those are used in wet slips so it would use those spaces that we're backing into those numbers for on the water dry stack storage correct. Ronald Merricks - What hours do you all plan to operate? Jeff Wilson - Hours? Ronald Merricks - Hours Jeff Wilson - we vary through the season, and we would have to adjust again, this is somewhat conceptual, so we'd have to look at staffing, hours and then there's just the capacity component of getting boats in the water. How many can operate to get to the fuel. It would be fairly standard hours during the in-season time frame Mr. Easley - which are what? What are standard hours? Jeff Wilson - they vary, (turns to audience member and asks what are our main in season hours now?) 9-7. Mr. Merricks - I spoke with AEP myself, I called and had a nice conversation with a lady and because they have no control over the number of boats, they referred me to the Department of Wildlife Resources, and I called them and finally talked to a guy and what concerns me most is there seems to be no control over how many boats go into Smith Mountain Lake, nobody has control over the number of boats, there's no formal regulation regarding the number of boats, the boat traffic, the only thing they require is that the buoys be in place to have the no wake, the buoy things, and I'm not a boat person, I'll be honest with you and given my lack of limited knowledge of boating but from a common sense point of view, 197 slips in that little bitty cove is to me is a lot of boats and a lot of boats and a lot particularly on like a July 4th weekend, when there's a lot of people who want to get out there on their boat and from what I could see they'll be some mad people because they can't get that boat in the water fast enough and I just don't understand all this but anyway, but I realize that's always going to be conflict between residential property owners and public water usage and I certainly understand that but I'm just looking at it from a common sense, and it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me but anyway, be that as it may, that's all I have. Carol Yeaman - When you were talking about the number of slips in that cove, did you take into consideration the neighbors across the cove that they have docks also and that would attribute also to the number of boats within that cove. That is a very small cove, I have been boating on that lake since 1966 and I knew Fred Munson when h built this dock, so I'm familiar with that area very well and it just seems like that's a lot for that little cove. Jeff Wilson-That's right, and we are one of the neighbors across the cove, we own a couple of the parcels across the cove ourselves, so we are aware and it does sort of back into a utilization rate, what can take place based on the space, so that goes back to the AEP component and the VDH component, they both have measurable components of what can really happen back here on this set up and so that's why they're going through those calculations on docks need to be this close this many slips, this far apart, they measure one third of the cove usage back in there so boats can have free access down the center of the cove while they are accessing either residents across the cove from us or the marina operations so it's looked at from a various AEP, VDH , DWR, TLAC. Ronald Merricks -What I did find out is that they don't look at anything beyond the shoreline, like the boat storage, they don't, they're not too worried about that. Jeff Wilson - To a degree, AEP you're correct, VDH is tied into that from the back end as far as how many slips and they have their calculation of what's a density usage allowable for the shoreline. VDH has their own marina program through the Department of Environmental Health and so we've been working with them on what's in place for the number of slips and proposed development plans. Ronald Merricks - The gentleman I talked to at the Department of Wildlife Resources, the first question I asked him was are you familiar with the application for the expansion of the marina? He stated, no I am not. The second question I asked was have you seen the cove that this marina is located in? He said "No, I haven't", so I was a little concerned about the response from them regarding this application because it's a big thing, but seem to be loop less, scoopless and clueless. Jeff Wilson - Sure, so we're involved with the AEP communication and the VDH communication from DWR and VDH side, they've been involved for he no wake buoys, so they're responsible for that cove and the distance limitations in the water. Ronald Merricks - I think you mentioned TLAC was responsible for the buoys, right? If I'm not mistaken. Jeff Wilson- In coordination with DWR, correct. Hershel Stone - Mr. Chairman, I have a couple questions. Are you planning to have any type of rental cabins or any type of units there? At one time, there were trailers on the property, is any of that part of your plan? Jeff Wilson - So as a part of this application, site plan conceptual is a part of that but not specifically for this application, so there are some by right uses for the current zoning that aren't specific to this necessarily special use permit, but as part of the site plan, conceptual piece that we submitted for this process we are looking at some by right uses for some cabin residential type component in this section. Hershel Stone - How many would that be? Jeff Wilson - To be determined. I mean we haven't, there's a bit of a chicken or the egg component of what comes first to get to that stage but we're still evaluating that through some site planning aside from this special use permit. Hershel Stone - At one time there was a restaurant operated there, I guess that's no longer there, are you planning on putting the restaurant in, is that part of your. Jeff Wilson - Not a part of these plans. Hershel Stone - Why did you stop using the restaurant on the water and why did you take the trailers out? Jeff Wilson- Restaurant is, there's still a grill on the water, on the dock, I'm not sure about the trailers, our group took ownership in May of 2020. Hershel Stone - Okay. Jeff Wilson - There were some old sort of abandoned cabins structures, we did some site clean-up and demoed some of those that were in disrepair. I'm not sure about how far the trailers may have dated. Hershel Stone - Earlier, he asked how many parking places you are going to have, is that to be determined also? Jeff Wilson - Correct. Hershel Stone - Okay. It's helpful to have that information, you know how many cabins you want to have, how many parking places you want to have, how many slips you want to have, to be able to approve it and I just thought I would mention that to you. Jeff Wilson - Thank you. Allan Easley - You speak, you refer often to AEP that you're working with them now, getting back to the 120-boat dry storage, you refer to AEP directing that or I'm not referring to AEP in the dry dock storage comment, or is that something that you and your group have come up with? Jeff Wilson - A little of both, it's sort of a tandem component and developing some plans on our own end in some third-party site planning, civil engineering tied into AEP feedback and communication in tandem tied into VDH communication and feedback. Allan Easley - And what's the AEP telling you? Jeff Wilson - It's a little bit again of the chicken and the egg component in terms of who's doing what first and who can approve something first, but I'll just refer back to the components, 701 and 702 of your packet from the county staff references where AEP stands and how they're looking at our proposal right now for the special use permit. They've reviewed the plans, determined that existing and proposed uses are consistent with the classifications established by the shoreline management program. Commercial uses are already established in existing dock structures are currently associated with an established commercial use. Appalachian does not object to your efforts to seek Pittsylvania County approval for expansion, Appalachian already considers the shoreline adjacent to the subject property to be appropriate for high density commercial uses. Allan Easley - I'm sorry, but where in there do I hear I have 120 dry slip building. I'm kind of like Ronald Merricks, that's a lot of boats and Smith Mountain Lake gets extremely busy, three or four times a year and if I guess my concern is if you get a call to put 100 boats in the water on July 4th, that's a concern. Jeff Wilson- Right, so you know again, we are under sort of that purview of AEP to help provide public access to the lake as a marina. Allan Easley - I understand that I'm with you, I've got that part. Jeff Wilson - There's the common sense utility usage of what can actually be done in terms of getting boats in the water and so that's why we're backing into those numbers you know AEP has not given a lot of specifics, they're saying hey, you guys get your approvals from the county under special use permit and then we can take some next steps forward, really those items should happen concurrently but AEP's taking that chicken or the egg, which comes first saying they're going to work with us to develop that density maximum capacity, make sure it fits all of their coordination components and their calculus of what fits for this shoreline this width of the cove and getting in the water. Allan Easley - that seems like it puts a lot of pressure on the Board of Zoning Appeals here to okay 120 slip boat storage facility, without quite frankly any guidance from the applicant. Jeff Wilson - And our guidance is coming from AEP and VDH so there's sort of multiple components that are trying to work in tandem here, otherwise the wheels just keep spinning. Allan Easley- But who told you, let me go back, let me spin the wheel back around. Who told you 120 slip dry dock storage, I guess is my question. Jeff Wilson - So that's a number that's being backed into from general guidance from AEP, the specific guidance from VDH marina program through their department of environmental health has specific calculations for the number of slips, what constitutes a slip, so they count slips and the water is one dry stack boat storage slips or the equation they use to count as one-third and so based on that density, how much shoreline frontage you have, where your facilities are, you mentioned the restaurant where the restrooms, they have to be in a certain distance to those facilities so it's sort of backed into with those different parties involved. Allan Easley - I guess I'm confused. Ronald Merricks - There's a lot of backing here. Allan Easley - It is, you know we don't have I guess we don't have any documentation from VDH or AEP or quite frankly you from as the applicant telling us this is how we have arrived at this number, this I what AEP said and this is what VDH said, we're back and forth. Jeff Wilson - Understood and that goes forward as you get into the permitting through VDH so we propose these plans, they've looked at them, given general agreement, but then you need to move to the next step or back to the chicken and the egg. We don't have a special use permit, that we would need to do permitting through VDH where they would then approve number of slips based on these facilities based on this distance from the shoreline based on these number of slips, so I guess what I'm saying is there's outside of the board of zoning appeals, we're asking to become a conforming use under the RPD zoning and so we would be having this discussion if we had a proposal to add or modify one slip and what we are stating and asking is that other jurisdictions will be involved in the definitive permitting number density, capacity AEP and VDH outside of BZA County special use permitting. Ronald Merricks - I don't know but I feel like and I'm sorry but it's a great picture and a great picture, it's a great little drawing but there's too many, we've got to do this, to do this, somebody's got to say before this is done and then we're going to approve something that we have no clue what we are proving and that really bothers me, I mean I'm sorry. I think we need it, I'm not against the marina, but I think the planning of this particular marina lot expansion, it talks a lot about the chicken and the egg, well I don't really care about chicken and eggs, I want to see a plan that documents everything and had everybody's input in it that shows exactly what's going to happen when, where it's going to happen, how many boar slips while they have so many boat slips, I just don't see that in this application. I may be the only one and that's fine. Hershel Stone- Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add to that. I believe that this is a vision that I have in my mind of additional boat storage, additional access, restaurant, cabins could be a really great thing for Pittsylvania County and so I 100 percent support that vision but I really would like to see some engineering drawings in saying hey we're going to have this number of slips, we're going to have this number of cabins, we're going to have this number of cabins parking places, if we're going to have a basketball court, a pickleball court, a beach, whatever you're going to have that you're going to draw people to your facility is what you know I've I would like to see, to say hey this is it, but I 100 percent believe that improving the property in Pittsylvania County for our tax base and for access for our citizens it's a great thing, you know in any rate. Carroll Yeaman - well it's you know that's my concern that if there's just too many slip there at 120 you know, I just have a hard time wrapping head around supporting 120 slips , a story there, I do know there is a need for storage on this side of the lake that would be helpful to people, I know there's a waiting list the marinas that if you want to store your boat, just about probably a year wait, so I realize that, but I kind of agree with the other guy that we are asked to approve something when we don't know what we're approving. Jeff Wilson - We've backed into the number with the other jurisdictions involved you know the marina sued to much more activity utilization many more slips, long before we were owners. There was dry stack storage on the site there were other wet slips on the site again, we came in 2020 cleaned up a lot of the stuff that was in disrepair upland and on the water, so this component again is to ask your approval that we could move forward with these jurisdictions that have the oversight capacity and density components to make some progress of continuing to make this a public access for Pittsylvania County storage access benefit for Pennsylvania County clean it up under these provisions of dry stack storage and wet slip is presented on the plans. Allan Easley - Anymore questions or comments for the applicant? Okay, we may have some a little later. Thank you, sir. Okay, the only person signed up to speak is Mr. Glenn Pulley. Glenn Pulley - Good evening, some of you have known me for decades, I came to Danville in 1976 and joined a law firm called Clement and Wheatley, and was with that firm until 2015 and I joined a firm in Roanoke then and that firm is Gentry Locke and my law partner John Puvak who is a land-use lawyer is with me tonight and he would like to share some of the time that we have which I understand is 10 minutes, is that right? I mentioned that I started working as a lawyer in 1976 under the tutelage of Mr. Stewart Wheatley who told me that if you're winning, stop talking, so I'm inclined to not talk a lot tonight. I sounds like many of you members on the board have already understood one of the primary concerns that we have and when I say we I want to say who the we are, we have residents who we represent, they are 29 that my firm represents who are opposed to the granting of this special use permit if you're a client, would you stand up please? And would you just affirm that you're opposed to the granting of all. Right, thank you. Many of these folks are on the Locust Lane side of the cove and some are on the other side of the cove which has been accurately described as a very narrow, short cove that has boat traffic from the permanent residents there and from the marina this proposal would add quite a bit more under circumstances which are candidly acknowledged by the applicant to be uncertain at this time. One of the points that we made in the submission that I hope all of you have seen we sent an e-mail to Mr. Easley on Friday and I'm sure, I hope you've had a chance to receive it and read it, if not we've brought extra copies tonight but one of the points we make is a residential planned unit development district and the purpose, the stated purpose of this district is and has been to promote a well-planned living environment to encourage a variety in housing and supporting community facilities while encouraging accessory commercial uses. Now the term accessory, we all know what that means, it means that there's a main thing and there's something that is an accessory to the main thing. Well, the main thing in this residential district that we're talking about we call it an RPD District the main thing is residential use which is supplemented or supported by a commercial use. The application as the conversation has gone tonight makes it abundantly clear that there is no residential use that is embedded in this application, it's all commercial use, there's a request to expand a commercial use known as a marina and there's an additional request to construct what is called a public garage, but it's really not a public garage, it's a dry boat storage facility and there's a difference between a public garage, I'm not saying we want a public garage but there's a difference between a public garage and a dry boat storage facility. But either ay whether you call it one thing or the other, what it really is, it is going to add a huge number of boats to that very confined area, so I wanted to make that point tonight and then I'm going to make a second point and I'll turn it over to my partner John Puvak. The second point I want to make has to do with the planning commission’s vote and Mrs. Ragsdale, I thought I heard you say the vote was five to zero. Emily Ragsdale - It should have been five to two. Glenn Pulley - five to two, right? Maybe I misheard you but the vote was five to two and I wasn't present at the Planning Commission but I have heard from other who were there seemed to be in the minds of at least some of the members of the Planning Commission this idea that as the applicant said tonight that oh the AEP, they control everything related to the cove to the waterway itself, well that's just not true. You control the use of the properties, and the properties include the riparian rights, we all know what riparian rights are. These properties that are along the cove and that adjoin the cove, these property owners enjoy riparian rights that are meaningful property interests and those riparian rights will be compromised and affected by the type of use on this cove that is being proposed by this applicant and so your job as the BZA is to do your own assessment of what is going to be the impact on the various properties that are already enjoying the cove. The AEP has a role, there's no doubt about that but it is not an exclusive roll, it is not a role that preempts you the Board of Zoning Appeals from exercising your duty to protect the property rights of those who are within the geographical zone where this is proposed endeavor is scheduled. We cited in primarily frankly for the BZA's council Mr. Dadack, we cited a very well-reasoned and well-written decision by a circuit court judge in North Cumberland County Judge Toliver is the Jennings case and I'm just going to quote one, it's a 10 page opinion but in that opinion Judge Tolliver specifically said the court finds that the grant of general zoning authority over land alone necessarily or fairly implies that localities may exercise the essential and indispensable regulations of structure and the uses on the water which by their very nature are inseparable from the zoning permitted use of the upland so what that is saying is counties who have zoning authority have the authority to make decisions about the use of properties and in doing so they should take in to consideration the riparian rights that's what that language from the court says. John Puvak - I'm going to defer him before he runs out of time. Let me make a few points, he said he'd be brief, but he's spoke for eight minutes so that's why we submit a letter when time is short, the night is long. We hope you read those points I want to focus on one key point that was brought in the applicant's presentation the BZA usually can mitigate impacts right mitigate impacts through conditions I think that's an attempt here but if the conditions just can't mitigate this use really can't mitigate such that the BZA can make the finding it has to make right, the finding is black and white that use will not be a substantial detriment to the adjacent property right and I think that the comments by the BZA make clear what we heard from the applicant tonight, those conditions staff made a condition that won't use Locust Lane, I think the applicant is pushing back on that and proposing Locust Lane with shared use that road and that ground was plowed years ago, you know the applicant got a road map in 2021 when the Planning Commission rejected this to come back with a number of items. Those items have not been done, so we're here, we're back now a couple years later, so the conditions really are a problem, you know they just even if those conditions are there, the county does not want to be the Arbiter of using this road or not using this road, that's a problematic condition so really again coming back to if you can mitigate a use through conditions then it should be approved. It's just not possible here given what the proposed uses are in the conditions. Again, the only other component I'll make is the comprehensive plan, I think that it hasn't been mentioned but the government's plan is important. I recognize AEP and the shoreline management plan says high density commercial the commercial plan says medium residential, so again going back to what Mr. Pulley said, residential users are important if this applicant was coming forward with a concept plan and the rezoning that was done in 2006 we wouldn't be here, we wouldn't be here, we would have told our clients to stay home and that's what would be built here but that's not what's being proposed so, this Marina's been shoe horned, there's a variance, there's non-conforming status it shouldn't be expanded. Thank you very much. Allan Easley - Mr. Wilson would you like to rebut those comments? Jeff Wilson - Asked to go back to the slide presentation. So, I guess it's in rebuttal and in response and in summary, you know to our opening comments and the other feedback, just want to reiterate the AEP components involved in this property, their jurisdiction and their oversight and how we've worked with them the other jurisdiction the VDH in the county to bring us here tonight. Again, starting with AEP, they are working to maximize the available use of the waters by the public. They have goals to allow the public to enjoy these interests and resources at Smith Mountain Lake. This property used to be much more dense, much more capacity and usage on the water and boat slips and dry stack storage, there were water slides on the property, all kinds of other stuff. The property is suited and situated under AEP shoreline management plan to look at our proposal and manage the density that in combination with VDH, their oversight for the number of slips the location of slips, location of facilities in regard to those slips for the property have backed us into this number and proposal that we're presenting to you this evening. so, I just want to reiterate that there are other jurisdictional pieces involved to control the density and capacity for the Dock at Smith Mountain Lake. AEP, VDH, mentioned DWR, TLAC, so they will all have continuing impacts to oversee what's taking place on the shoreline for The Dock at Smith Mountain Lake. We can't get anywhere without some approval to be a conforming use as a marina, which has been a marina. There are multiple generations of families that come visit the marina, almost daily to visit what's been there for years as a marina to provide them, their children, their grandchildren, some of them aren't even coming to use the boat slips, or the storage, they're coming to feed the fish in the water and visit the property. It's had this density before, we're requesting and proposing through this proposal to add wet slips, to add they dry stack storage, knowing that we're continually going to be under this jurisdiction of AEP, VDH, DWR, TLAC and so that's why we brought forward these conditions asking for your approval that we become a conforming use marina, which has been a marina for a long time, we want it to continue to be a marina. We want to continue to make improvements that we've already begun to make in cleaning up and disrepair and providing access to the public. The county wants this to be a public access to Smith Mountain Lake, there are guards in place from these other jurisdictions to manage the density and capacity, but the county is never going to allow us or anybody else to move forward unless we take the steps of becoming a conforming use marina. Continuing to be under the bounds of AEP, VDH, DWR and TLAC, and so that's why we're asking for your request to approve it with the conditions as presented tonight. Allan Easley - Any other questions for the applicant, comments? Thank you, sir. The time is now 8:12, we will close the public hearing. Comments? Opinions? I have a question for Mrs. Ragsdale, I'm probably supposed to know the answer, but I don't. Can an applicant withdraw a permit application without penalty, and how does that work? Chris Dadack - Generally not once the public hearing has been closed. Allan Easley - Okay. Thank you. So, folks we got to make a decision. We can do a positive motion with conditions, or we can do a negative motion because we cannot mitigate conditions, adverse conditions. Ryland Brumfield - my view on this is the Planning Commission speaker made a recommendation of five to two with some conditions. The applicant has come back based on how I said request and approval with different conditions. I just don't feel good about that because that's sending me a sign that the applicant is not good with what the Planning Commission had recommended to us. So, I think there's a lot of unanswered questions on this that probably needs to be settled and worked out before this moves forward, that's my opinion. Hershel Stone - Me. Chairman, I am extremely supportive of expanding access to the lake especially in Pittsylvania County, I just don't at this moment I don't feel, I'd love to see this place expand and it is in disarray at the moment and it would be great to have it updated and be something to be attractive for our community and in the people in the surrounding areas it's really difficult t see that without much information and give an example with 120 slips, you know how many people are going to use those slips on Labor Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, are you going to have? How much traffic are you going to have around the wet slips as you're putting these boats into the water, taking them out, you know I don't know and Planning Commission probably knew a lot more about that than I would, but if we had some more information, I could be extremely supportive of the project, but as it stands, it's hard to have that good feeling that we've mitigated the adverse effects to the neighbors. Allan Easley - Any comments? Carroll Yeaman - I agree with him, it's just we just don't have enough information, I just think 120 slips with the others will make a total of 196 slips, that's a very small cove. Allan Easley - Mr. Craddock? Jay Craddock - Well I don't know much about boating, but it sounds like that's a lot of boat slips for that small of a cove and it was mentioned several times that it used to be much more dense than it was now, I think that would be good information to know. That would be a good piece of information where we would at least know at one point in time, there was X number of slips there and it worked well, but I just don' think we, I just don't have a good comfort level of approving this with this many slips, not knowing it it's too many or if it'll work or not. Ann Dee ring - I'm kind of like Mr. Craddock, I don't know very much about boating, but I think that's something a lot of slips at this time, I'm all for progress, but I just don't think we know enough, it's a lot of unknowns I think at this time. Carroll Yeaman - Well I can give you a little bit of information because I've been boating on that lake, I'm aware of that cove and AEP, stop the marina there were not slips, there was only where you could pull up against the dock years ago, but all of the boats were anchored on a mooring line out in the middle of the cove and so you did have to maneuver through. AEP stopped that because it was dangerous, they do not allow that anymore, so that's the story as far as how many boats, there were a lot of boats in there in the 70's and early 80's but I do know that AEP did stop allowing them to do that. Chris Dadak - If I may Mr. Chairman, there's also the third option of tabling, I heard a lot of information, questions about having information, there's always the option of tabling the matter out to your next board meeting for the opportunity to receive more information if you think that would be helpful. Ronald Merricks - What I was getting ready to say we got three choices, either positive motion, negative motion or we table the issue and to get that information to us, well we needed we need to ask what would it what do we want to know. Allan Easley - Right, I'm in line with the board that we simply don't have enough information right now to make a remotely intelligent decision on this an we're not getting any more information tonight so I'm of the opinion if the board is of the opinion that we table this motion, or this application and then we would hear it again, we would reconsider it as old business in May, is that correct? We would not have a public hearing. Emily Ragsdale - That is correct, and May would be within the required 60 days but you would need to act on it at that time okay, you could not table it again. Allan Easley - What's the thinking on that? Because I think we're all of the opinion that progress would be extremely good in that spot at the lake, the marina will continue to operate, if we don't do anything it's going to continue to operate as it is, it's not like we're going to close it down but I think we would all like to see progress there. The county would certainly like to see the progress, but I'm afraid right now I don't have enough information to make a vote, I don't want to make a negative vote, but I can't make a positive vote, and that's just where I am now, so do we vote to table it, okay? Then I would entertain a motion to table this case until the May meeting. Hershel stone - So moved Mr. Chairman. Allan Easley - Motion from Mr. Stone. Mr. Merricks- Second. Allan Easley - Second from Mr. Merricks. Ryland Brumfield - May I make a comment before we vote? Allan Easley - Yes Sir. Ryland Brumfield - If the board votes to table this really what I would like to hear some more is about this road that we heard very little about tonight, you know staff recommended a new entrance from the main road, I can't think of it, yeah from 626 and I've seen so many proposals here but and then there's a the applicant is suggesting the declaration of road maintenance. I don't know what that means of Locust Lane, so it really needs to if it comes back before us, it needs to be very clear. To me, access to and from and very laid out, very clear, nothing in the gray area. Allan Easley - Mr. Wilson, that's we'll put that in the hands of your company that we've got to have some more information before we can remotely make a positive decision along those lines and you've got until May, what's the date? Emily Ragsdale - May 8th. Allan Easley - May 8th will be our next meeting because Ronald Merricks- If I understand it, there's no presentations at that meeting, so the information we need these to come to your office and get to us before then. Emily Ragsdale - The applicant could present the information but there wouldn't be no public hearing. Ronald Merricks - Okay, that's fine. Glenn Pulley - How would we be able to respond to the additional information that is submitted? Allan Easley - Mr. Pulley, we'll let our attorney respond to that. Chris Dadak - Never had a situation come up to be honest, it can be routed through staff, that'll probably be the best way if you could provide it to staff ahead of time, we'll make it part of the packet which will then be publicly available. The public can always submit comments and written form anyway, so we just asked, he said there's something in writing so we would submit something in writing before May the 8th which would presuppose that the staff would receive something in from the applicant before that day. So is there a date on which the applicant will need to present the information to staff so we'll have an opportunity to respond. You see what I'm? Allan Easley - I do. Emily Ragsdale - Staff would request on the information from the applicant the last Thursday of April so that we have adequate or I'm sorry, the last Thursday of March so we have adequate time to prepare the staff summary and incorporate it in the packet to make sure that the packet is available to you and the public when it's advertised in April. Allan Easley - And we'd like to have it sooner than that if we could, so that we can digest it and ask questions. Glenn Pulley - Thank you. Allan Easley - Thank you. All right, there's a motion and a second to table this hearing. All those in favor make it known, Mr. Yeaman, it says it's waiting on you. Allan Easley - All right, we have a tabled hearing and with that being said, this meeting is adjourned, we will gather again in May. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Hershel Stone, Board Member SECONDER: Ronald E. Merricks, Vice-Chairman AYES: Easley, Merricks, Brumfield, Craddock, Deering, Stone, Yeaman ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8: 25 p.m.