>> [NOISE] 7:30 WE'LL CALL THE JANUARY 13TH,
[I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL]
[00:00:05]
2022 MEETING OF THE SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER.THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO INSTALL A NEW CHAIR,
[II. ELECTIONS/APPOINTMENTS/SCHEDULE]
VICE-CHAIR, AND SECRETARY.ARE THERE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR?
>> I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE MICHAEL JAY.
>> I MOVE WE CLOSE THE NOMINATIONS.
>> ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS? WE'LL TAKE A VOTE FOR MR. DRAKE TO BE THE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
>> ANY OPPOSE? [NOISE] THANK YOU.
[LAUGHTER] I GUESS YOU MADE THIS FILL UP EASIER.
AS WE ALL KNOW, YOU ARE MORE QUALIFIED THAN I AM.
BUT I WILL CERTAINLY GIVE IT MY BEST THIS COMING YEAR AND I'LL CERTAINLY APPRECIATE ALL YOUR HELP AS WE GO FORWARD.
AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONFIDENCE IN ME SERVING THIS POSITION.
LET'S CONTINUE ON WITH OUR NOMINATIONS FOR OUR VICE CHAIRMAN.
NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIRMAN FOR THE COMING YEAR. THANK YOU.
>> I VOTE NOMINATIONS BE CLOSED.
>> I HAVE A MOTION THAT THE NOMINATIONS BE CLOSED.
>> OKAY, I HAVE A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR MR. RANDALL BEING OUR VICE CHAIRMAN, HERE IS SECOND TO THAT MOTION.
>> GOT A SECOND IN THAT MOTION.
ALL IN FAVOR FOR MR. RANDALL BECOMING OUR VICE CHAIRMAN FOR THE COMING YEAR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SIGN WILL BE UNANIMOUS.
>> OKAY. I AGREE. GO AHEAD AND SECOND.
>> I GOT A PROPER SECOND FOR THAT.
>> MOVE NOMINATIONS BE CLOSED.
>> NOMINATIONS BE CLOSED, SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR OF MRS. LOUIS BEING OUR SECRETARY FOR 2022 SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SIGN WILL BE UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
NOW I'M GOING TO ASK IF EVERYONE WILL STAND AS WE RECITE OUR [INAUDIBLE] [NOISE] OF ALLEGIANCE] I'M GOING TO ASK IF EVERYBODY WILL REMAIN STANDING.
MR. CHESTON, AND I'M GOING TO ASK IF YOU WILL LEAD US IN A WORD OF PRAYER.
>> IF YOU'RE INVITED TO JOIN ME IN PRAYER, PLEASE DO.
WE THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE STRENGTH AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US TO BE ABLE TO BE HERE.
WE ASK THAT YOU LEAD US AND GUIDE US TONIGHT AS WE GO BACK TO YOUR WORK FOR THIS COUNTY.
LORD, I SPECIFICALLY LIFT UP MR. RAYLEIGH TONIGHT.
IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING HE MIGHT BE IN THE HOSPITAL.
LORD, WE ASK FOR HEALING, COMFORT, AND PEACE FOR HIM THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
LORD, I ASK FOR WISDOM OF DOCTORS AND NURSES TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THE BEST PROCEDURES.
LORD, I PRAY FOR PROTECTION FOR EACH OF US IN THIS ROOM TONIGHT FROM THIS CRAZY VIRUS CALLED THE COVID, BUT MOST OF ALL, LORD, FROM THE EVIL ONE.
LORD, WE PRAY THESE THINGS ALL IN YOUR SON'S NAME, JESUS. AMEN.
[00:05:02]
>> THANK YOU. YOU MAY BE SEATED.
[NOISE] AGAIN, ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION STAFF HERE TONIGHT, WE WELCOME EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU ALL FOR COMING TONIGHT.
MS. BAKER, IT WAS A PLEASURE, THE GRIP OF TRUTH THE JOB YOU DO.
WE WELCOME OUR SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT GROUPS IN TONIGHT, WITH OUR SHERIFF BEING HERE TONIGHT.
WE APPRECIATE THEM AS WELL BEING HERE WITH US TONIGHT.
APPRECIATE EVERYBODY WEARING A MASK TONIGHT.
WE GOT TO CONTINUE LIKE MR. CHESTON SAID EARLIER THAT WE JUST GOT TO HAVE FAITH THIS THING WILL PASS SOON AND THIS IS BY THE BEST PROTECTION WE HAVE.
APPRECIATE YOU ALL EXERCISING YOUR SOCIAL DISTANCING AND WEARING A MASK TONIGHT, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.
OKAY, WE WILL PROCEED WITH OUR MEETING.
I SEE YOU EVERYBODY GOT THE PACKETS. THAT'S GREAT.
I APPRECIATE MS. SHEILA GETTING THOSE OUT IN TIME.
WE HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO REVIEW THEM BEFORE OUR MEETING TONIGHT.
IF YOU'LL LOOK AT YOUR AGENDA, ITEM NUMBER 3,
[III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
WE HAD AN EYE OUT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING.DID ANYONE HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS OR ADDITIONS TO THE MINUTES AS THEY WERE PRESENTED?
>> I HAVE A MOTION THAT THEY ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. DO I HEAR A SECOND?
>> MR. CHESTON, DID YOU FIND ANYTHING?
>> IF THERE IS NO OTHER COMMENTS THEN WE WILL GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH THE VOTE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF ACCEPTING THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SIGN [INAUDIBLE] WILL BE UNANIMOUS.
[IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS]
WE'VE GOT TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS TONIGHT.ONE IS OUT OF VACATION BEING NUMBER ONE.
I'M GOING TO ASK MS. LOUIS, IF YOU WOULD TAKE HER PLACE.
>> BEFORE WE START, MR. RAYLEIGH'S SON, EDWARD RAIGHLEY, GAVE ME HIS CELL PHONE NUMBER TODAY.
IF WE FIND OURSELVES IN NEED OF AN ATTORNEY, EDWARD RAIGHLEY SAID WE CAN CALL HIM.
>> THIS IS AN ALLEY VACATION REQUEST.
YOU HAVE A MAP THAT SHOWS THESE ARE TWO LITTLE PIECES OF ALLEYS IN THE SADLEY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY ARE THE END OF THIRD STREET WEST AND FOURTH STREET WEST.
MR. MARTINET, THE APPLICANT, OWNS THE PROPERTY IN BETWEEN THE TWO.
THESE TWO ALLEYS BACKUP TO AGRICULTURAL LAND THAT IS ACCESSED BY ANOTHER ROAD, A DIFFERENT MEANS TO GET THERE.
THE FRONT EDGE OF THE TWO LOTS TOGETHER IS 288 FEET.
TO MAKE RECONFIRMING LOTS YOU NEED 300 FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE.
THE LOTS ARE MORE THAN DEEP ENOUGH TO COME UP WITH THE 20,000 SQUARE FEET, BUT HE NEEDS A LITTLE MORE WIDTH.
THIS AREA HAS BEEN OUT THERE, THEREFORE SAID THEY'RE NOT USED AND HE IS REQUESTING THAT THEY BE VACATED, THAT SHOULD HE BE APPROVED HE WOULD GET 30 FEET OF EACH ONE AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE OTHER SIDE WOULD GET 30 FEET OF EACH ONE.
I WROTE SPECIFIC LETTERS AND YOU HAVE COPIES OF THOSE.
TWO OF THOSE ARE ABIDING PROPERTY OWNERS ASKING IF THEY SPECIFICALLY HAD ANY CONCERNS AND TO LET ME KNOW THAT BY DECEMBER 31ST AND I DID NOT HEAR FROM THEM.
I RECEIVED ONE TELEPHONE CALL FROM A GENTLEMAN WHO SAW A NOTICE AND HE LIVES A BLOCK OR SO AWAY AND HE WONDERED IF THIS AFFECTED HIS ALLEY AND I SAID NO, IT'S ONLY THE ONES [NOISE] THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED ON THE MAP THAT YOU HAD.
HE WANTED TO KNOW IF HE COULD GET HIS ALLEYS VACATED.
HE HAS ANOTHER ALLEY BEHIND HIS END.
I EXPLAINED THE PROCESS TO HIM, TOLD HIM THAT ALL THE ABIDING PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD HAVE TO AGREE, AND SO HE MAY SEEK THAT.
MR. MARTINET SUBMITTED NOTICES FROM THE COUNTY'S UTILITY DEPARTMENT FROM SPECTRUM AND FROM DOMINION SAYING THAT THEY DON'T USE THESE LITTLE PIECES OF ALLEYS FOR ANYTHING.
I DIDN'T HEAR ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM ANYONE ELSE.
I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND MR. MARTINET IS HERE AS WELL.
>> [NOISE] FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, IN READING, THE INFORMATION THAT IS IN IT IS GOING TO BE DIVIDED 50-50. IS THAT CORRECT?
[00:10:04]
>> THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
>> ANY OTHER? I THINK WE'VE DONE THIS SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE I THINK AND SADLY AS WELL AS SEVERAL I THINK CORRECT?
>> WE'VE DONE MANY TIMES SADLY.
>> MANY TIMES AND SEVERALLY YES. [OVERLAPPING] [NOISE]
>> A LOT OF PEOPLE [INAUDIBLE].
>> THERE WERE NO FAVORITE STREETS, THERE'S A LOT OF STREETS THAT ARE INSANELY THEIR ALLEYWAYS THROUGHOUT.
>> MANY OF THEM AND SADLY GO BEHIND THE BACKS OF HOUSES THAT FRONT TWO OTHER STREETS.
THERE MIGHT BE SIX OR EIGHT OR 10 ABIDING PROPERTY OWNERS.
THIS CASE, MR. MARTINET, THERE'S ONE AND THERE'S SOMEBODY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ALLEY.
THAT'S ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS SAID THEY'RE AFFECTED.
>> IT SAYS THAT IT WILL PERMIT THE THREE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES.
>> THE THREE ARE NOT ABLE TO BUILD ANYTHING WITHOUT THESE ALLEYS BEING VACATED?
>> RIGHT NOW THERE'S ENOUGH LOT WITH TO CREATE TWO LOTS, NOT THREE. [NOISE]
>> THE PROPERTY IS SHORT 12- FEET IN LOT WIDTH TO CREATE THREE 100 FOOT WIDE LOTS, BUT IT IS MORE THAN DEEP ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE A LOT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE PROCEED?
>> YEAH, JUST MY CLARIFICATION.
WE'RE ABANDONING THE 3RD STREET WEST AND IT'S CALLED AN ALLEY THEN 4TH STREET WEST ALLEY ALSO. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES. A SHORT PIECE OF IT BETWEEN OAK AVENUE AND-
>> AGRICULTURAL FIELDS TO THE SOUTH.
>> THERE'S ANOTHER ALLEY AND WITHIN THE PARTIAL.
>> THAT ONE IS ALREADY BEEN VACATED.
>> WHAT MR. MARTINET'S PLAN IS, SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED IS TO TURN THIS 192 FOOT WIDE LOT AND 96 FOOT WIDE LOT AND AN ADDITIONAL 60 FEET INTO THREE LOTS AT LEAST 100 FEET WIDE TO BE ABLE TO BUILD THREE HOUSES.
THE DEPTH IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MRS. LOUIS? IF NOT, I WILL [INAUDIBLE] [NOISE] AND ANYONE [INAUDIBLE] YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO COME TO THE PODIUM AND WE JUST ASK YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD PLEASE.
IF ANYONE WANTS TO COME FORWARD.
WE CAN FULL ORGANIZED OWN WEBCAM, WE'D LIKE TO COME AND MAKE COMMENTS.
>> HE'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
>> WE ARE VERY INFORMAL DON'T BE SCARED OF US. [LAUGHTER]
>> ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD?
>> I'M SURE MR. MARTINET WOULD ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
>> I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE HEARING [NOISE].
MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MARTINET OR DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE PROCEED? WE GOT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER TONIGHT.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND VACATION OF THE TWO HOUSES.
>> OKAY. MRS. AUSTIN, WE HAVE A PROPER MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FAVORABLE FOR THE VACATION OF THIS.
ALICE. DO I HEAR SECOND ON THE MOTION? [OVERLAPPING]
>> [INAUDIBLE] SECOND THE MOTION.
IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION [NOISE]? IF NOT, I'LL CALL IT A VOTE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING JUST AS A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SAY AYE.
>> ALL OPPOSE SAY AYE. IT IS UNANIMOUS.
>> SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED THEN PRIVATE SURVEYOR WOULD BE HIRED BY MR. MARTINET TO CREATE NEW SURVEYS THAT SHOW THE VACATED ALLEYS AND THE PROPERTIES BEING ENLARGED ON EITHER SIDE?
>> MR. MARTINET WISH YOU THE BEST. GOOD LUCK.
>> ALL RIGHT. MS. LOUIS WE ARE GOING TO ITEM NUMBER 2, THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH IS A [INAUDIBLE]?
>> YES. THIS IS FOR TAX PARCEL 92-54 AND A PORTION OF 92-55.
THIS WAS AS YOU COULD TELL BY YOUR MAPS,
[00:15:02]
PART OF THE BO FARM ZONING MAP AMENDMENT THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INITIATED AND APPROVED IN 2017, I THINK, IT WAS.WHEN WAS IT? [NOISE] TO EXPAND THE COUNTIES INDUSTRIAL PARK.
THE COUNTY DIDN'T OWN THE PROPERTY, BUT THEY HAD FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL.
IT WAS APPROVED THE CHANGES ON AND TOOK CONDITIONAL GENERAL INDUSTRIAL.
SHORTLY AFTER THAT, THE ONE-PIECE, THE LARGER OF THESE TWO PIECES, THE 31 ACRE PARCEL WAS DEEMED TO BE MOSTLY WETLAND AND FAIRLY UNDEVELOPABLE.
THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE [NOISE] COUNTY'S PROPERTY THAT THEY HAD FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL ON.
SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, [INAUDIBLE] NO LONGER WANTS TO BUY IT.
THE OWNER WAS FREE TO OFFER TO WHOEVER IT DID WANT IT [NOISE] BY MR. DARDEN DID WANT TO BUY IT.
THAT 31 ACRE PARCEL AND OTHER 8.5 ACRE PARCEL THAT ADJOINS IT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE AREAS, YOU CAN SEE IT'S ALL FAIRLY WOODED.
IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY ROAD FRONTAGE.
IT WOULD GET TO IT BY A 30-FOOT EASEMENT THAT STARTS RIGHT NEAR THE ENTRANCE TO THE NVIVO SIDE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THIS MAP, THIS IS WHAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS [INAUDIBLE] [NOISE].
YOU CAN SEE THE 30 FOOT EASEMENT AND THEN IS THE BOTTOM LEFT-HAND PORTION TAX PARCEL 92-54, AND THE RED HIGHLIGHTED AREA WHICH IS PART OF 92-55.
ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE COUNTY'S AGREEMENT WITH THE FORMER PROPERTY OWNER WAS IF SOMEONE ELSE BOUGHT IT, THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WITH INITIATED, CHANGE BACK TO A1 IF THE NEW OWNER WANTED THAT, AND THEN NEW OWNER WOULD LIKE THAT TO HAVE THE ZONING CHANGE BACK TO A1.
WILL CONTINUE TO BE USED FOR FORESTRY AND AGRICULTURE AND OPEN SPACE.
THAT'S THE REQUEST TONIGHT TO CHANGE THE ZONING JUST 40 ACRES [NOISE] FROM CONDITIONAL M2 TO A1.
MR. DARDEN IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AND I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL.
>> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO QUESTION BEFORE OPEN HEARING.
THE EASEMENT FOLLOWS THAT BERM, THERE'S A BERM BETWEEN THE [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTY, BERM WITH TREES ON IT, AIN'T THAT CORRECT?
>> [NOISE] THE EASEMENT [NOISE] IS FOR THE PROSPECTIVE OWNER TO GAIN ACCESS SAY IF HE WANTED. [OVERLAPPING]
>> DRIVE A VEHICLE TO GET THERE.
>> RIGHT. TO GO BACK AND EVEN TO IF THEY WANTED TO HARVEST THE TIMBER ONE DAY, THAT WOULD BE THE WAY TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. THERE'S A 30-FOOT EASEMENT ON THAT'S FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS.
>> IT'S NOT A ROAD, BUT IT'S JUST THE-. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S THE RIGHT TO DRIVE ON PROPERTY.
ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY. YES.
>> CALM, STAY APART. OKAY, YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, I WILL SAY ONE MORE COMMENT.
THE 31 ACRE IN THAT WOODED AREA.
I THINK THAT WAS NOTED. ONE ON THE WETLAND AREA?
I KNOW WE TALKED A LOT BEFORE.
SOME OF THEM CITIZENS THAT HAVE LIVED ON ALONG STRUCTURED ROAD, THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT THAT AREA BEING DEVELOPED?
>> I'M NOT SAYING IT ALWAYS WILL, BUT IT WILL BE A BUFFER WHEN THE TREES ARE BETTER PUT OUT OF THE WAY.
>> I THINK THAT WAS A LOT OF CONCERN BACK, SO I'VE LAID THAT'S GOING TO REALLY REMAIN INTACT.
THAT SAYING IT CAME OVER, COULD IT.
EVERYBODY BECAUSE TEMPORALLY BUT FOR THE MOST PART, IT WILL BE ALWAYS BE TEMPORALLY.
>> IT COULD DO WHATEVER IS PERMISSIBLE IN THE A1 ZONING DESIGNATION. YES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MISS LOUIS BEFORE WE END THE HEARING? IF NOT, I'M END THE PUBLIC HEARING,.
>> OKAY ANYONE LIKE TO PUT FORWARD THE REZONING APPLICATIONS AND STAND HERE IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD.
IF YOU WANT TO WAIT TO THE END, I DON'T KNOW WHO WANTS TO COME UP TONIGHT.
WHY DON'T YOU COME UP ANYWAY. [LAUGHTER].
[00:20:11]
WHEN ALL THAT TRANSFER TOOK PLACE?>> YEAH THIS WAS A APPROVED VERSION THAT THIS OCCURRED.
>> RIGHT. I MEAN, THIS IS ALREADY OUTLINED RIGHT HERE INTO PURCHASE AGREEMENT.
>> THAT COUNTY WOULD INITIATE THE ZONING CHANGE.
>> IT DIDN'T AUTOMATICALLY CHANGE THE ZONING BACK TO A1, BUT SAID THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WOULD INITIATE A REQUEST.
>> ENOUGH ABOUT REMEMBER THAT BEFORE. OKAY.
>> ANYONE LIKE TO COME FORWARD?
>> NOTICES WERE SENT OUT TO ALL THE ABIDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND I RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALLS.
>> I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW THIS REZONING WOULD BENEFIT THE COUNTY.
>> [INAUDIBLE] I GUESS LIKE I JUST MENTIONED, WOULD BE ONE BENEFIT, IF YOU REMEMBER, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION WITH THE HOUSES ON THE SYCAMORE CHURCH.
YOU REMEMBER THAT? I THINK IT'S I THINK THERE WAS A COUPLE OF GOING TO BUILD A HIGHER COPELAND.
MR. CALVIN WAS ACTUALLY BUILDING A HOUSE ON THE JASON PROPERTY.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MONETARY BENEFIT.
I THINK I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT AESTHETICS, BUFFERING.
I GUESS MR. CALVIN IS STILL PLANNING ON BUILDING, BUT IT WILL CERTAINLY GIVE A BUMP UP AS LONG AS THE TRACE OF THERE BY BEING WETLAND.
I DON'T SEE IT BEING CLEAR, BUT WHO KNOWS WHO'S, BUT I THINK THE BENEFIT TO VALUES, SUPPOSE SCREENING.
THAT TYPE OF PAYING THE TAX OR MONETARY SITUATION, I DON'T KNOW YOU.
>> WELL, THE BENEFIT IS THAT THIS BOARD AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, OFTEN TIMES ARE SEEKING TO PROTECT AGRICULTURE AND FOREST THE LAND.
THIS WILL PROTECT THAT AGRICULTURE AND FOREST LAND.
WHOEVER OWNS IT, A PRIVATE OWNER OWNED IT BEFORE MR. DARDEN, AND THEY WERE PAYING PROPERTY TAXES ON IT.
AS YOU COULD READ IN THE AGREEMENT THAT THE COUNTY WAS PAYING THEM BACK THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE PAID IN LAND RATES PROGRAM AND WHAT THEY PAY FOR THE INDUSTRIALLY ZONED PROPERTY.
WHEN IT HAS A NEW OWNER, THE NEW OWNER WILL PAY REAL ESTATE TAXES ON IT BASED ON ITS USE AND ITS ZONING.
AS FAR AS A FINANCIAL BENEFIT FOR THE COUNTY, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ONE, BUT THERE IS A BENEFIT FOR COUNTY CITIZENS WHO WILL SEE THIS 40 ACRES OF PROPERTY USED FOR AGRICULTURAL USES.
>> I SAW THAT AS A POSITIVE BECAUSE IT WAS BEING RETURNED TO AGRICULTURAL USE, AND I THINK WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT PROTECTING FARMLAND, WOODLANDS, AND EVEN IF IT IS, THE TEMPORARY HARVESTED.
IT'S A WETLAND, AND THERE'S AN ENVIRONMENTAL PURPOSE THERE TOO.
I SEE THE BENEFIT IN MULTI LEVELS AND I AGREE, I THINK THAT THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE NEAR THIS PROPERTY WILL BE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE THAT BUFFER ZONE THERE AGAIN PROTECTED.
>> WE JUST FOLLOWING, THIS IS A PERSON WHO [INAUDIBLE] THE AGREEMENT, A LEGAL DOCUMENT.
WE'RE JUST SAYING TRANSFERRED TO LAND.
WE'RE FOLLOWING THE AGREEMENT [INAUDIBLE]
>> MR. CHESTER DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER CONCERNS OR COMMENTS? OR ANYONE AS FAR AS THAT GOES, OR ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
>> I'D SAY, I TRIED TO COME WITH AN OPEN MIND TONIGHT AND I'M SEEING, INDUSTRIAL ZONE PROPERTY IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA WITHIN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND WE'RE WANTING TO DOWN ZONE IT TO AGRICULTURE, AND I RECOGNIZE IT'S GOING TO PROBABLY BE A FINANCIAL BENEFIT FOR THE SPECIFIC LANDOWNER.
[00:25:01]
BUT WHEN DOING THAT, THE REMAINING TAXPAYERS WITHIN THE COUNTY, WE'LL MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE.WE'RE HARMING THE OTHER TAXPAYERS BY PLACING THE BURDEN OF ABSORBING LESS REVENUE THE COUNTY WOULD RECEIVE.
>> ALTHOUGH THIS PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS INDUSTRIAL ZONING, IT FOR ALL INTENDS AND PURPOSES, HAS NO INDUSTRIAL USE.
BEING LARGELY WETLANDS, IT COULDN'T BE DEVELOPED IN AN INDUSTRIAL MANNER.
IF IT WAS GOING TO BE USED AT ALL, A SMALL PORTION OF IT COULD BE MAYBE WITH ENOUGH ENGINEERING BE USED SOMETIMES MAYBE AS PART OF BMP, A STORM WATER FEATURE.
BUT VERY LITTLE OF IT COULD EVEN BE USED FOR STORM WATER FEATURE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T IMPACT THE WETLAND, SO YES, TODAY IT HAS INDUSTRIAL ZONING.
DOES IT HAVE POTENTIAL FOR INDUSTRIAL USE? THAT ANSWER IS NO.
>> THERE'S ACTUALLY OTHER LANDS OR TRACTS, OR PORTIONS OF TRACTS IN THAT GENERAL AREA, WHAT I CALL THE FOUR BROTHERS AREA.
I ALMOST SAID SOME OF THE TREATABLE LAND IS BEING ACTIVATED.
I THINK SOME OF THAT IS WORTH A LOT OF MONEY.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF SOME OF THAT CLEARED LAND WOULD EVEN BE SUITABLE.
AGAIN, IT MIGHT BE A SITE FOR A RECREATIONAL PARK OR SOMETHING POSSIBLY BUT UNFORTUNATELY THAT AREA HAS GOT SOME LOW PLACES AND THERE ARE SOME OTHER AREAS IN THAT SAME ZONE THAT I DON'T THINK WILL BE DEVELOPED SO FAR AS A STRUCTURE BEING PUT ON.
>> WHEN YOU MAKE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, OF COURSE, YOU STUDY BIG SWATHES OF LAND, NOT EACH ACRE, OR 10 ACRES OR A 20-ACRE PIECE OF PROPERTY.
YOU DON'T DO THAT UNTIL YOU'RE CONSIDERING DEVELOPING IT.
THERE MAY BE OTHER PIECES OF PROPERTY THROUGHOUT THAT LARGE AREA OF THAT INDUSTRIALLY NOTED PROPERTY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT IS LIKEWISE UNDEVELOPABLE.
BUT YOU DON'T FIND THAT OUT UNTIL YOU DO RESEARCH ON A MUCH MORE FINE-GRAINED LEVEL THAN YOU DO WHEN YOU'RE MAKING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
YES, THIS PROPERTY TODAY IT HAS INDUSTRIAL ZONING BUT DOES IT HAVE ANY INDUSTRIAL POTENTIAL? THAT ANSWER IS NO.
>> WOULD I BE SAFE IN SAYING THAT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGES THAT WE WILL MAKE, WE WILL EXCLUDE THIS PROPERTY FROM INDUSTRIAL USES? WOULD YOU SAY THAT WOULD BE A SAFE ASSUMPTION EVERYBODY WOULD BE WILLING TO DO?
>> I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE I'LL [INAUDIBLE].
TONIGHT, WE'LL JUST HAVE EXECUTE IT.
>> I THINK THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE APPLICATION BE FILED.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND MAYBE I'M WRONG, THE COUNTY IS NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED TO REZONE THE PROPERTY.
>> PERHAPS WHEN YOU GET TO THAT STAGE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, YOU WILL WANT TO LOOK AT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, THIS 40 ACRES, AND EXCLUDE THAT FROM THE INDUSTRIAL AREA.
IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE ON A MAP YOU'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO SEE 40 ACRES THAT YOU'VE EXCLUDED BUT THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT YOU CHOOSE TO DO.
>> I MEAN, I'M OKAY WITH THE REZONING.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD THE IMPLICATIONS OF IT.
>> DID I CLOSE THE HEARING? I DON'T THINK I DID.
>> YOU DID CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING].
>> DOES ANYONE WANT TO COME AND MAKE A COMMENT BEFORE WE CLOSE THE HEARING? IT'S A PROCEDURAL THING. I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
[NOISE]. WE STILL CAN CONTINUE WITH QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
[INAUDIBLE] [NOISE] TRYING TO BE CONSIDERATE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? [NOISE] [OVERLAPPING]
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND THE REQUESTED A1 ZONE.
[00:30:01]
>> OKAY. MS. ALLSTON, SHE'S MADE A PROPER MOTION THAT WE MAKE THIS A PROPER RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR APPROVING THIS REZONING REQUEST. DO I HEAR A SECOND?
[NOISE] I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE MR. TURNER THIS TIME FOR BEING THE SECOND, GIVE EVERYBODY A TURN. [NOISE] THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE MOVE? [NOISE]. IF NOT, I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF SUBMITTING THIS AS A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION SAY AYE.
>> AYE. [OVERLAPPING] [NOISE].
>> ANY OPPOSERS BEFORE I CAN SIGN? THE VOTE IS UNANIMOUS.
LUKE AND DONALD I WISH YOU THE BEST WITH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
[NOISE] [INAUDIBLE] THANK YOU ALL.
>> BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER, CAN I ASK THAT YOU ALL LOOK AT THIS SCHEDULE AND MAKE SURE THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT.
IT RETAINS THE MEETING ON THE SECOND THURSDAY OF EACH MONTH EXCEPT FOR AUGUST, WHICH IS [OVERLAPPING] COUNTY FAIR WEEK THE THIRD THURSDAY OF THE MONTH.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO THAT SCHEDULE? [NOISE]
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE TIME?
>> WOULD WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY MAYBE TO HAVE SOME OF OUR MEETINGS A BIT EARLIER DURING THE WINTER MONTHS? [NOISE].
>> THAT'S CERTAINLY UP FOR DISCUSSION.
I GUESS YOU WILL BE SPEAKING FOR WHAT MONTH?
>> DECEMBER, JANUARY, FEBRUARY MONTHS.
INSTEAD OF A 7:30 MEETING, MAYBE A 6:30.
>> THERE'S NO ONE USING THIS ROOM AT THAT TIME.
THERE IS ALWAYS A CONCERN WHEN YOU HAVE MEETINGS CHANGE TIMES [OVERLAPPING].
>> YEAH, I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP THE TIME PRETTY MUCH SET SO THAT WE COULD AVOID PUBLIC CONFUSION AND UPSET. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YES. I REMEMBER, I'M SURE SUPERVISOR EDWARDS DOES TO, WHEN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS USED TO MEET ON EVEN MONTHS IN THE MORNING AND ODD MONTHS IN THE EVENING OR THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
[NOISE] SOME PEOPLE FOUND THAT TO BE CONFUSING.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO CHANGE THE TIME, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU CHANGE THE TIME OF ALL THE MEETINGS RATHER THAN SOME OF THE MEETINGS, BUT THAT'S JUST MY SUGGESTION.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE TIME? MS. ALLSTON I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN.
I KNOW YOU HAD TO TRAVEL A WAY, [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S OKAY. I JUST THOUGHT I'D THROW IT OUT.
>> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. [INAUDIBLE] [NOISE]
>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A COMMENT? [NOISE]
>> I PERSONALLY LIKE THE 7:30 TIME FOR MY WORK SCHEDULE BUT THAT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION [OVERLAPPING].
>> MS. ALLSTON, WHAT DO YOU THINK?
>> THAT'S FINE. I JUST SAID WE'D NEVER REALLY TALKED ABOUT THE TIME AND MAYBE THIS WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS IT BUT 7:30 IS FINE.
>> OKAY. BUT THANK YOU FOR, AS ALWAYS, OPEN DISCUSSION.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN, BUT WE'LL FORGET THIS POINT, WE'LL JUST CONTINUE ON.
>> WHAT WORKS. IF AIN'T BROKEN, DON'T FIX IT, RIGHT?
>> DO WE NEED TO ADOPT THIS SCHEDULE FOR THE MINUTES?
>> YES. FOR THE MEETINGS, YES.
>> OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TIME? IF NOT, I WANT TURN A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT THIS SCHEDULE AS PRESENTED.
>> THAT'S THE SECOND THURSDAY EACH MONTH? [NOISE]
>> SECOND THURSDAY EACH MONTH ALSO, RIGHT?
>> EXCEPT IN AUGUST. [OVERLAPPING]
>> EXCEPT IN AUGUST. [OVERLAPPING] IT IS AS [NOISE] PRESENTED IN THE SCHEDULE HERE, OKAY?
>> I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE.
>> PROPER MOTION AND PROPER SECOND THAT WE ADOPT THE SCHEDULE AS PRESENTED IN THE AGENDA.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT A CALL TO VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> WE DON'T LIKE SILENCE, THAT YOU NOW. THANK YOU.
WE'LL MOVE DOWN TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE,
[V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS]
WHICH IS CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE DETAILS FOR SOLAR AMENDMENTS.WE CERTAINLY THANK MS. LEWIS FOR BRINGING US UP TO DATE FROM THE DECEMBER MEETING WHERE WE'RE AT AND HOW WE CAN PROCEED FORWARD.
SHE REQUESTED THAT WE GO BACK AND [NOISE] REVIEW HER INTERPRETATION OF WHAT WE HAVE GOTTEN TO JUST [INAUDIBLE].DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT PART, WHAT WE HAVE REVIEWED BEFORE WE GO FURTHER INTO THE CHAPTER?
>> I GUESS ONLY THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOURTH SECTION,
[00:35:04]
AND THIS IS JUST MY PERSONAL THOUGHTS.IN READING NUMBER 2, IT'S TALKING ABOUT MEGAWATTS.
ITEM NUMBER 3 IS TALKING ABOUT ACRES.
TO ME, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL EVEN IF WE ONLY TAG NUMBER 2 TO PUT IN PARENTHESES AFTER IT AND THEN IT'S THE CURRENTLY ESTIMATED TO BE HOW MANY ACRES DOES A 100, NO MORE THAN A 100 MEGAWATT.
BECAUSE THAT, I THINK, AS WE KNOW IS CHANGING.
AS THE TECHNOLOGY IN PANELS CHANGE, A 100 MEGAWATTS MIGHT BE 50 ACRES, BUT TODAY IT'S 100 ACRES, AND THAT'S SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW.
TO ME IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE THAT DEFINED IN THIS [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S WHY NUMBER 3 SAYS NO MORE THAN ONE PERCENT.
>> CAN'T CONSUME ANY MORE THAN ONE PERCENT OF COUNTY LAND.
SO IF THEY MAKE MORE MEGAWATTS IN A SMALL AREA, IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE LAND VALUE OR THE AMOUNT OF LAND THAT'S GOING TO BE CONSUMED.
>> THINK WE'VE GOT ABOUT 1,600 ACRES LEFT.
>> SO WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF ITEM NUMBER 2 THEN? [NOISE]
>> TO PREVENT PROJECTS THAT ARE LARGER THAN 100 MEGAWATTS.
HOWEVER, MUCH SPACE THAT TAKES UP.
THE TECHNOLOGY MAY IMPROVE THAT YOU CAN BUILD A 100 MEGAWATTS ON HALF THE LAND THAT YOU CAN BUILD IT TODAY.
BUT IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO GET THAT EFFICIENT BEFORE THE ONE PERCENT IS USED UP.
>> THE ONE NOW IS WHAT, 1,400 ACRES?
>> AND THAT'S A 100 MEGAWATTS.
>>I THINK, AND I WAS I WAS PART OF [INAUDIBLE], I THINK THAT'S WHERE THAT CAME FROM, THEY DECIDED [INAUDIBLE] THAT BROUGHT THIS PROJECT WAS PRETTY LARGE PROJECT, THE FIRST ONE.
WE USED THAT AS AN EXAMPLE THAT MAY WANT TO HAVE THAT INTENSITY IN ONE AREA ANY MORE THAN THAT.
IT'S A DOUBLE SWORD YOU MIGHT SAY.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT WOULD TAKE UP THE REMAINING PLANT SPACE BUT THAT WOULD LIMIT THE SIZE.
IF IT WAS ANOTHER HUGE PROJECT AND THEN IT'D BE ENOUGH FOR A SECONDARY PROJECT OR MAYBE SEVERAL OTHER PROJECTS SMALLER.
IT MAY BE SEVERAL SMALLER PROJECTS ANYWAY, WE JUST DON'T KNOW IT, BUT THAT WOULD LIMIT THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT MAYBE.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THINGS CLEARER.
BUT IF IT'S CLEAR TO YOU ALL I'M OKAY WITH IT. I UNDERSTAND IT.
>> WELL SINCE WE'RE RIGHT THERE ON THAT ITEM 3, I HAD A QUESTION, I HAD MADE A NOTE.
[NOISE] LIKE MR. DAVE MENTIONED, I THINK WE'RE SAYING THAT THE [INAUDIBLE] PROJECT TAKES UP APPROXIMATELY 1,400 ACRES OF LAND MASS MADE OF 1,400 ACRES.
AGAIN, MS. LOUIS I'M GOING TO ASK, IS THAT WITHIN THE FENCED AREA OR IS THAT OF ALL THE LAND, BEING WOODED LAND THAT WAS CONVERTED OVER OR THE FARMLAND OR WHATEVER, IS THE 1400 ACRES THE TOTAL LAND OF THE TRACKS THAT WERE AFFECTED, OR IS IT THE LAND INSIDE THE FENCED AREA?
>> THE PORTION OF LAND THAT WENT THROUGH THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT PROCESS.
WHICH IS EVERYTHING INSIDE THE FENCE AND ACCESS AREAS OUTSIDE THE FENCE.
EVERYTHING THAT IS USED FOR THAT PROJECT TODAY WAS 1,418 ACRES.
NOT ALL OF IT IS COVERED BY PANELS, SOME OF IT IS PATHWAYS, ROADWAYS.
>> BUFFER AREAS, LANDSCAPE AREAS, BUT THAT ENTIRE PROJECT TODAY TAKES [NOISE] 1,418 ACRES.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I HAVE A TROUBLE IDENTIFYING THE PROJECT.
BUT TO ME, THE PROJECT INCLUDES ALL OF THE LANDS, THAT HAVE NO USE AT ALL.
THERE'S NO BUFFER, THERE IS NO CROP BEING GROWN ON IT.
INSIDE THE PROJECT IS FENCED OUT.
BUT THERE'S ONE PROJECT DOWN CROSS KEYS ROAD THAT GOES INSIDE,
[00:40:02]
I GUESS IT'S A LOW AREA LIKE A [INAUDIBLE] AREA, BUT IT WAS CLEARED, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE PANELS ON IT.>> BUT CERTAINLY EVERYTHING THAT IS FENCED OFF.
EVERYTHING THAT IS INSIDE THE FENCE IS PART OF THAT 1,418 ACRES.
THERE ARE SOME AREAS OUTSIDE THE FENCE THAT ARE USED FOR THAT PROJECT THAT ARE PART OF THE 1,418 ACRES.
>> THEN THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.
ARE THOSE AREAS OUTSIDE THE FENCE THAT WERE TAKEN OUT EITHER FOR FORESTRY, HARVESTING, OR CROP PRODUCTION, ARE THEY INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT?
>> YES. THE AREA THAT HAS A ZONING DESIGNATION OF CONDITIONAL M2 IS PART OF THE PROJECT, AND IS 1,418 ACRES.
>> EVERYTHING THAT'S FENCED UP IS INCLUDED.
>> BUT THAT'S WHAT I WANTED CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I NOTICE A LOT OF AREAS THEY'RE BEING MOWED, AND THEY'RE BEING MOWED BY THE STRATA SOLAR, I THINK, THEY ARE THE GROUP IN CHARGE OF THE MOWING, THEY'RE MOWING THESE AREAS THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE FENCE.
>> YES, BECAUSE THAT IT'S ALL PART OF THAT.
>> ALL OF THAT WILL BE CONTRIBUTED TO THE ONE PERCENT?
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING TO.
>> THE INDUSTRIAL SITES, THE ROADWAYS, AND ALL OF IT IS PART OF THE PROJECT?
>> YES, BUT I'M ASSUMING. YES.
>> ACTUALLY THE LAND MASS INSIDE OF THE FENCED AREA IS CONSERVED LESS.
A COUPLE OF 100 ACRES BUT LESS PROBABLY.
>> IT'S ABOUT 1,300 ACRES OF PANELS, 12-300 ACRES OF PANELS, YES.
BUT EVERYTHING THAT UNDERWENT A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT IS PART OF THE PROJECT IN THAT ACCOUNT.
>> AND THERE ARE 385,000 AND SOME CHANGE ACRES IN SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY, SO THAT [NOISE] IS 3,850 ACRES IS ONE PERCENT, AND 1,418 ACRES HAS ALREADY BEEN USED.
SO A LITTLE MORE THAN A THIRD OF IT HAS ALREADY BEEN USED.
>> YOU ALL DISCUSSED LAST MONTH THE ONE PERCENT.
THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT MAKING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN CLEAR LAND AND WOODLAND.
ALL YOU SAID WAS ONE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF LAND IN SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY.
I READ THAT AND I GOT TO THINKING ABOUT IT.
IF WE JUST SAY ONE PERCENT OF THE ACRES IN SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY, THEN WHAT'S GOING TO GET HIT IS ALL CLEAR LAND.
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO HIT.
IF WE'RE GOING TO DO ONE PERCENT, IT SHOULD REPRESENT THE RATIO OF WOODS LAND AND OPEN LAND.
IN OTHER WORDS, OUT OF THAT ONE PERCENT, IF WE GOT THE RATIO OF WOODS LAND AND CLEAR LAND IN THIS COUNTY, IT SHOULD APPLY TO THE ONE PERCENT.
IN OTHER WORDS, OUT OF THAT ONE PERCENT, THERE SHOULD BE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF ACRES IN WOODS LAND AND A CERTAIN AMOUNT IN CLEAR LAND.
THAT AFFECTS ALL THE LAND WITHIN THE COUNTY AND DOESN'T PUT THE BURDEN ON JUST ONE.
I'M NOT TRYING TO THROW THE TIMBER INDUSTRY UNDER THE BUS, BUT TECHNICALLY THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, THE EGG INDUSTRY IS THROWN UNDER THE BUS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO VOLUNTARILY SAY, "WELL, I'M GOING TO PUT IT OVER HERE IN THE WOODS LAND." THEY'RE GOING FOR THAT CLEAR LAND.
I NOTICED THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT IT AND THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE A FAIR EQUATION BECAUSE SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY IS NOT, WOULD YOU SAY 335,000 ACRES?
>> TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IS 386.
>> 386. OKAY. WELL, WE DON'T HAVE 386,000 ACRES OF CLEAR LAND.
PART OF IT IS WOODS AND PART OF IT IS OPEN, WHICH SHOULD APPLY THAT TO A WHOLE DIFFERENT WAY.
THEN PUT THAT EQUATION IN THE ONE PERCENT.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT HIT ME, SOMETHING TO CARRY HOME, GIVE IT SOME THOUGHT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT VOTING ON PASSING THIS TONIGHT, BUT I THOUGHT ONE INDUSTRY IS CARRYING THE BURDEN.
I NOTICED THAT MR. [INAUDIBLE] TALKED EXTENSIVELY ABOUT WE COULD DO BETTER AND THAT JUST RANG OUT IN MY HEAD.
I THINK IT'S HITTING OUR COUNTRY PRETTY HARD BECAUSE I'M INVOLVED IN THAT INDUSTRY BUT YOU NOTICE,
[00:45:06]
I GUESS WE'RE PRETTY PROUD OF OUR HISTORY OF BEING THE LARGEST RAW CROP COUNTY IN THE STATE.OF COURSE, WE'RE LEADING IN CORN, PEANUT, AND IN COTTON CROPS ESPECIALLY, BUT WE TAKE ALMOST 2,000 ACRES OUT OF 1,500.
IS IT 1,500 ACRES THAT REMAINED? IS THAT RIGHT, MS. LEWIS? [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT MIGHT MAKE SOME CHANGES. IT MAY BE OUT OF THE WAY.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT IT COULD CHANGE THINGS.
>> WELL, THE OTHER THING THAT HIT MY ATTENTION WAS THAT MR. TENNESSEE BROUGHT OUT THAT THERE WAS A PROJECT IN PREBLE COUNTY AND DENISE SAID THAT WAS PUT OVER ON FLAT OVER LAND?
>> THAT WAS A SALVO TRACK, IS THAT CORRECT?
I THINK IT WAS ONE OF THE APPLICANTS THAT WE HAD YEARS AGO, AND I WENT TO HIM PERSONALLY AND ASKED HIM WOULD THEY AGREE TO PUT IN A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF IT ON WOODS LAND AND CERTAIN PERCENTAGE ON CLEAR LAND, AND THEY SAID THEY WOULD CERTAINLY CONSIDER THAT, BUT AS IT TURNED OUT, THEY PULLED THE APPLICATION ANYWAY.
I KNOW OF OTHER PROJECTS THAT THEY COME IN AND THEY START OUT SAYING WE'LL PUT THE SOLAR PANELS ON YOUR MARGINAL LAND, BUT THEN AS DISCUSSIONS GO ON, AND THE LAND OWNER SAYS, LET'S INCLUDE SOME TIMBERLAND.
WELL, IF WE'RE GOING TO INCLUDE TIMBERLAND, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PAY YOU AS MUCH, SO THEY'RE FORCING THE LAND OWNER TO GO TOWARDS CLEARED LAND, BUT IN THIS CASE, WE DON'T HAVE OUR CLEAR LAND IN THIS COUNTY SO IF WE'RE WILLING TO SHARE ONE PERCENT, THEN WE SHARE IT ACCORDINGLY.
THE OTHER THING THAT'S CAUGHT MY ATTENTION IS THIS IS ALL SOLAR.
WHEN THE WIND FOLKS COME IN HERE, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO DO ANOTHER ONE PERCENT OR DO WE CLASS THIS AS OUR WIND AND SOLAR ORDNANCE? DO WE PIGGYBACK AND WE GATHER AND WE'RE CONTRIBUTING ONE PERCENT TO ANY TYPE OF [OVERLAPPING] RENEWABLE ENERGY, GREEN ENERGY.
WE'RE STARTING OUT WITH A TITLE THAT IS JUST TALKING SOLAR, AND WIND IS ON IT'S WAY.
I SAW A WIND TURBINE THIS WEEKEND, INSTEAD OF HAVING THE BLADES ON IT, IT WAS A SPIRAL BLADE ON IT AND [INAUDIBLE].
IT WAS SUITABLE, IT LOOKED LIKE TO ME FOR A HOME OWNER, BUT YET I COULD SEE WHERE IT MIGHT CATCH MORE WIND AND THE BLADES COULD, BUT THE THOUGHT IS THAT'S COMMON.
>> THAT'S THE NEW STYLE THAT IS GOING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
THE TWO BIG WIND FARMS THAT ARE OFF THE COAST, ONE OFF THE COAST AT VIRGINIA BEACH, THE OTHER ONE'S DOWN AT KITTY HAWK.
WIND FARMS ARE COMING INTO OUR AREA AND THAT IS A BIG PUSH WITHIN THE STATE, BUT I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE ONE PERCENT.
>> DOES IT INCLUDE THE FEW BROWNFIELDS WE DO HAVE IN THIS COUNTY? IS THAT INCLUDED IN THE [OVERLAPPING] ONE PERCENT?
>> ONE PERCENT IS THE [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE LANDMASS OF SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY.
>> RIGHT. BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL PLACES IN SOUTHAMPTON THAT ARE FLAT, BUT THE LAND HAS BEEN RUINED AS FAR AS CULTIVATION IS CONCERNED.
>> IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO USE THAT, THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE ONE PERCENT.
I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP BECAUSE IN THE PAST, WE'VE ALWAYS TRIED TO PUSH, WHAT WAS THE PROPER TERMINOLOGY?
>> BROWNFIELD. I KNOW WITH OUR FIRST APPLICANT, WE MENTIONED THAT AND THE GENTLEMAN LOOKED AT US LIKE HE DID NOT KNOW WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.
YOU CAN GOOGLE IT AND THERE'S AN ISSUE IN EUROPE.
SO OBVIOUSLY, HE WAS LEADING US DOWN A ROAD IN THE FIRST PLACE.
SO MY THINKING HE IS WITH THE ORDINANCE, THAT WE SAY IN THE ORDINANCE, WE WANT TO USE OUR BROWNFIELD ACREAGE FIRST.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS SUITABLE FOR THAT AND THEN WE DO THE BALANCE OF IT ACCORDINGLY PERCENTAGE-WISE, TIMBER, OPEN LAND WITH THE BALANCE OF THE ONE PERCENT TO BE IN USE, BUT ENCOURAGE IN WRITING TO USE THE BROWNFIELD.
SO WE'RE STILL CONTRIBUTING TO RENEWABLE ENERGY,
[00:50:03]
BUT WE'RE USING IT WISELY.I DON'T HAVE ANY BROWNFIELD ACRES WE HAVE IN THE COUNTY.
>> I KNOW THE ONE DOWN ON THE FAR END OF THE COUNTY THAT WAS PART OF ANIMAL BI PRODUCT PROCESSING PLANT.
THAT WAS WHERE THEY DIFFUSED ANYTHING THAT THEY NEEDED, WATER THAT HAD BEEN AFFECTED.
IT USED TO BE A PRODUCTIVE FARMLAND, BUT NOW IT HAS THESE SPRINKLERS SPORADICALLY PLACED OUT, BUT IT'S JUST A WIDE OPEN FIELD.
>> I THINK IT'S BEEN RECENTLY SOLD.
>>YOU KNOW WHERE I'M TALKING ABOUT.
>> WELL, YOU COULD HAVE A PROJECT THAT MIGHT BE 500 ACRES.
IF THEY'RE IN AN AREA AND THERE IS BROWNFIELD ACREAGE THERE, THEN THEY HAVE TO USE THE BROWNFIELD ACREAGE AND THEN WORK THE REST OF IT, A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF OPEN LAND AND TIMBER LAND.
>> WELL, YOU MAY WANT TO DISCUSS SOME INCENTIVE THAT THERE CAN BE LESS BUFFERING AROUND THE EDGES OR SOMETHING IF YOU DO USE BROWNFIELD LAND, BUT I HAVE TO SAY THAT I THINK IF YOU TURN THIS INTO A WIND AND SOLAR ORDINANCE, IT'S NOT GOING TO GET DONE IN ANY REASONABLE LENGTH OF TIME, AND YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THE MORATORIUM ENDS SEPTEMBER 10TH.
>> WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I GUESS I DON'T WANT US TO SET ONE PERCENT TO SOLAR ENERGY AND THEN TWO YEARS DOWN THE ROAD WE'RE LOOKING AT WELL, WIND ENERGY WANTS ONE PERCENT.
>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT WIND FARMS, I'M SURE THEY CALL THEM WIND INSTALLATIONS, JUST LIKE WE CALL THEM SOLAR INSTALLATIONS, THERE ARE CROPS AND GRAZING ANIMALS RIGHT UP TO THE EDGE OF THE PEDESTAL THAT HOLDS THE TURBINES.
WELL, THEY ARE USUALLY QUITE IMPACTFUL.
THAT LANDMASS THAT THEY TAKE UP IS VERY MINIMAL.
>> WELL, WE WERE TOLD THAT WHEN SOLAR STARTED.
[OVERLAPPING] YOU CAN GRAZE AROUND THEM.
>> I'VE SEEN THE ANIMALS AND THE CROPS RIGHT UP TO THE EDGE.
WHEN YOU DRIVE THROUGH KANSAS, YOU SPEND AN ENTIRE DAY SEEING WIND INSTALLATIONS WITH CROPS AND ANIMALS RIGHT UP TO THE PEDESTAL.
>> EVEN IN NORTH CAROLINA LIKE DOWN ELIZABETH CITY, THEY STILL HAVE TILLABLE FARMLAND AROUND ALL THOSE WINDMILLS.
>> YOU SEE THEM IN THE MOUNTAINS WHERE THEY HAVE CATTLE AND EVERYTHING'S OPEN AND IS BIG.
>> I THINK I HAVE TO AGREE WITH MS. LEWIS.
I THINK THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT ANIMAL, AND I THINK IF WE START DOING THAT, WE'RE NEVER GOING TO FINISH THIS VOTE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, I THINK WE JUST NEED TO CONCENTRATE ON SOLAR FOR NOW AND BRING UP WIND LATER.
>> I THINK WE'RE WASTING TOO [OVERLAPPING] MUCH TIME TRYING TO COMBINE IT WHEN WE JUST NEED TO FOCUS ON THESE THREE PAGES AND KEEP MOVING FORWARD.
>> WELL, I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, AND I JUST KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE THANKFUL TO WIND IN THE FUTURE AND WE COULD CHANGE IT TO RENEWABLE ENERGY AND TAKE THE SOLAR ALL OUT OF IT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE CAN ALWAYS DO AN AMENDMENT TO OUR ORDINANCE WHEN THAT COMES ABOUT, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO STAY ON TRACK WITH THIS ONE.
[OVERLAPPING] WHAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IS REQUESTING.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IF YOU LOOK AT THE SCIENCE OF THIS, PEOPLE WHO KNOW, SAY, NATURAL GAS, AND SMALL COMPACT NUCLEAR UNITS ARE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH.
THIS IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE OBSOLETE IN A FEW YEARS.
WE HAVE ENOUGH NATURAL GAS IN THIS COUNTRY.
THE POWER OF THIS COUNTRY FOR 1,400 YEARS.
ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED YEARS IS THE ESTIMATE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN I MOVE? YOU ASKED FOR COMMENTS REGARDING THIS PAGE, THE ITEM NUMBER SIX, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, CAN WE SIMPLIFY THIS TO JUST SAY THAT NO PROPERTY IN THE APPLICATION IS TO BE AN AGON FORRESTER DISTRICT.
MAYBE THE APPLICANT WOULD FROM THAT.
THEY WOULD KNOW THEY WOULD NEED TO GET AT ALL OF THEIR AGON FORRESTER DISTRICT.
>> FOR THIS JUST AFFECTS THE TIMING.
THIS SAYS THAT THE ONE PROCESS HAS TO BE DONE BEFORE THE SECOND PROCESS BEGINS?
[00:55:01]
>> WELL, I'D SAY IT'S JUST SEMANTICS.
MY OTHER THOUGHT, NOTE ON QUESTIONS ON ITEM SEVEN, HELP ME ON THIS.
THE STATE CHANGE SOME RULES THAT ALLOWED FOR REVENUE SHARING IN A SOLAR PROJECT THAT WOULD BE IDENTIFIED DURING THIS CITING AGREEMENT PROCESS.
MAYBE I'M MIXING TWO TOGETHER AND YOU'LL HELP ME IF I AM.
BUT HAS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPTED THE NECESSARY ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW THE COUNTY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE REVENUE SHARING? YEAH.
>> THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR AN ATTORNEY, BUT SINCE THE STATE LAW REQUIRES IT, THE COUNTY HAS TO TAKE PART IN IT.
THERE IS IN THE QUESTION IF ANYONE WANTS TO DEVELOP SOLAR, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE COUNTY ELECTED OFFICIALS REGARDING A SIGNING AGREEMENT.
>> THE $1400 VERSUS THE PERSONAL PROPERTY ERROR MACHINE UNTIL TAX.
THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT QUESTION.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WOULD HAVE TO ADOPT.
BUT THE SIGHTING AGREEMENT IS STATE LAW.
PROCEDURALLY. I DON'T KNOW IF THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAS TO ADOPT THAT, BUT THAT'S REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.
THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE REVENUE SHARE.
>> THE REVENUE SHARING IS A TAXATION QUESTION.
I GOT THIS INFORMATION SHEET, ALTHOUGH MEETING BACK IN DECEMBER AND I HAD A BREAKOUT SESSION THAT I GOT IT TERMED SOCIAL IMPACT.
WELL, QUESTIONS, INFORMATION, BUT JUST KIND OF LET YOU KNOW WHERE I WENT INTO VIRGINIA TODAY IN CASE YOU DON'T KNOW.
THIS WAS UPDATED IN THE THIRD QUARTER OF 2021. [INAUDIBLE] IN VIRGINIA TODAY.
WHAT VIRGINIA HAS RIGHT IN THERE, IS AT LEAST 5,987 MEGAWATTS OF SOLAR INSTALLED ON JUST OVER 67,880 ACRES OF LAND.
THAT'S LISTED ON [INAUDIBLE] PERMANENT BY RULE DATABASE.
THIS NUMBER DOES NOT INCLUDE 1,000 ADDITIONAL ACRES INSTALLED OR ALREADY APPROVED TO BE INSTALLED OUTSIDE THE PBR PROCESS.
I THOUGHT THIS WAS ON THE LIST, FOR JANUARY FOURTH IN THE NATION, LAST YEAR, SOLAR ISOLATION.
THAT'S HARD TO BELIEVE IN. WE WRITE FOR AND SOLAR INSTALLATION IN 2020.
TO MEET THE GOALS OF THE VIRGINIA CLEAN ECONOMY ACT RIGHT NOW IS ESTIMATED THAT VIRGINIA WILL NEED AT LEAST AN ADDITIONAL 135 ACRES OF LAND FOR SOLAR INSTALLATION.
IT LOOKS LIKE WITH JUST A LITTLE OVER THE HALFWAY POINT.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF EVERY LOCALITY, I'VE JUST USED THE ANALOGY, EVERY LOCALITY WITH DOUBLE WHAT THEY ALREADY KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO EXCEED THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED FOR THAT MANDATE ON VIRGINIA CLEAN ECONOMY ACT.
NOBODY CAN SAY VIRGINIA HAS BEEN LAGGING BEHIND BUT I GUESS THAT'S WHY WE HAVE SO MUCH ATTENTION IN OUR STATE BECAUSE WE ALL FALL RUNOFF FOR SOLAR INSTALLATION.
>> I WON'T SAY PROBABLY DIDN'T DO LAGGING BEHIND.
>> WE OWNED THE FRONT WHEEL ON THE FRONT BURNER.
>>I LIKE THE ACCUSED TO BE ACCUSED OF LAGGING BEHIND.
IT'S GOING TO VANISH, GET BACK TO THE BASICS, ABOUT 67, 8 PERCENT OF OUR ELECTRICITY DO MOST.
IT'S OVERPRICED BUT WE WILL PAY FOR IT.
>> SAY THAT AGAIN, WHAT PERCENT? SIXTY-EIGHT PERCENT. THAT'S THE GOAL
>> [OVERLAPPING] OF GREEN ENERGY.
LOTS OF US THAT CAN BE USED FOR US.
IT'S GOING TO BE SHIPPED OFF TO NEW JERSEY AND WHEREVER THE CAPITALS ARE.
THEN WE GET NEED TO GET BACK. THEY START DOWN ON NUCLEAR STUFF.
THEY WENT [INAUDIBLE] THEIR GAS IS NOW ALMOST $19 A GALLON.
THERE'S A LESSON TO WARN THERE.
[01:00:03]
LIKE I SAID I THINK MOST EXPERTS IN THIS AREA'S SAY, WE GOT ALL THE NATURAL GAS ON THE WORLD AND NEUTRAL NUCLEAR POWER IS SAFE.I THINK ONE OF THESE DAYS WE'RE GOING TO BE REALLY SORRY, WE WENT DOWN THIS TRACK WITH THE SOLAR AND [INAUDIBLE].
EUROPE, THEY TRIED IT BEFORE AND STILL IT DIDN'T WORK.
THEY HAD TOWERS ALL OVER THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA, THEY ARE NOW TAKING THEM DOWN.
EVERY ONE OF THOSE TOWERS, THOSE WINDMILLS YOU SEE, USES 80 GALLONS OF OIL PER YEAR TO LUBRICATE.
IF YOU ADD UP THE CARBON FOOTPRINT TO MAKE THAT AND RUN THAT.
THEY DON'T WANT TO GET IT BACK IN 50 YEARS.
THE STUFF THAT'S GOING IN IS NOT CARBON EFFICIENT.
I THINK ONE PERCENT, YOU SAID THE OTHER, I GO FOR ZERO PERCENT, TELL YOU THE TRUTH, THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT FROM THEM.
IN SOME OF THESE COUNTIES, THEY GOT FOUR PERCENT MORE POWER TO THEM, THEN THEY CAN HAVE THE FOUR PERCENT.
MAYBE THAT'LL TAKE THE PRESSURE OFF.
THAT MAYBE THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT PRESERVING THEIR LAND AND THEIR WAY OF LIFE FOR THEIR FARMLAND.
I DON'T WANT TO TALK IN CIRCLES, BUT I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS.
WE GOT CLARIFICATION THAT THE PROJECT AREA IS THE ENTIRE SITES BEING REZONED, AND THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED INTO 1 PERCENT.
MR. MANN, I'LL COME BACK TO YOU JUST FOR CLARIFICATION BEFORE WE GO FORWARD.
DO YOU HAVE A PROPOSAL? ARE YOU OKAY? DO YOU WANT TO PUT A PERCENTAGE OF PLAYER VERSUS FORESTRY? PLUS MRS. AUSTIN MENTIONED ABOUT USING THOSE BRIARFIELD.
IS THERE ANY WAY WE COULD SPECIFY, MS. LEWIS? IS THAT BEING TOO VICARIOUS AND LIMITING, OR IT GOES BACK TO THE PRIME FARMLAND IN A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IF A PERSON COMES IN, THE GREATEST DEVELOPER OF THEM, HE USES A HALF PERCENTAGE OF PRIME FARMLAND ONLY, I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT.
THAT'S JUST MY RIGHT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK HE'S UTILIZING OR FOLLOWING LOYALTY THAT WE ALL HAVE IN THE CO-PLAN.
CAN WE PUT PERCENTAGES? IS THAT ALLOWABLE?
>> 1 PERCENT OF THE LAND THAT SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY HAS TO OFFER AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW BASED ON FORESTRY OPEN WITH BRIARFIELD BEING [OVERLAPPING] AN EMPHASIS THAT WE WON'T USE THE PARK.
>> WE KNOW HOW MANY ACRES THERE ARE IN SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY.
HOW DO WE COME UP WITH HOW MANY ACRES ARE FORESTED? HOW MANY ACRES ARE CROPLAND? HOW MANY ACRES ARE
>> RESIDENTIAL, AND [OVERLAPPING] AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
>> THE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY HAS THAT INFORMATION.
>> CAN SOMEBODY COME UP WITH A NUMBER?
>> LET'S GET MS. LEWIS SOME NUMBER.
I WOULD THINK THE FSA WOULD HAVE A CROPLAND, WOULDN'T THEY?
>> WE CAN COME UP WITH IT NOW, AND I IMAGINE WE CAN COME UP WITH THE RESIDENTIAL LAND, BUT I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE FACT THAT A CLEARED LAND AND FORESTED LAND, AND THAT RATIO THEN IS HOW WE APPLY IT TO THE 1 PERCENT.
>> WOULD YOU SAY IF THE LAND AREA OF THE COUNTY, EXCLUDING RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND PAVED AREAS AND WATER AREAS IS 40 PERCENT CLEARED LAND AND 60 PERCENT FORESTED.
THEN WOULD YOU SAY OF THIS 1 PERCENT,
>> THIS CAN BE TOO CONFUSING. [LAUGHTER]
>> FORTY PERCENT OF THE 1 PERCENT COULD BE USED, AND 60 PERCENT OF THE OTHER PERCENT COULD BE USED.
WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL CAN WORK WITH. MR. DRAKE?
>> YES. I THINK WE CAN USE VAGUE NUMBERS.
[OVERLAPPING] SO THEY HAVE THE EXACT.
I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE THE EXACT.
>> IN YOUR DESCRIPTION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ORDINANCE, YOU'RE ALREADY SAYING THAT THE PURPOSE AND INTENT IS TO PROTECT ACTIVE, VIABLE FARM AND FORESTED LAND WHILE PERMITTING THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITY-SCALE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECTS IN LIMITED AREAS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY.
[01:05:05]
YOU'VE ALREADY SAID THAT YOU WANT TO PROTECT FARM AND FOREST LAND.>> THAT'S WHY WE'RE KEEPING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BECAUSE THEN THAT WOULD BE WHEN YOU WOULD EVALUATE THOSE THINGS THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT.
>> AS MR. DRAKE SAYS, IF THEY COME IN AND THEY USE 100 PERCENT OF THE LAND THAT'S [OVERLAPPING] NOW IN FARMLAND, THIS BODY HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF NO AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAS THE RECOMMENDATION NOT TO APPROVE IT.
BUT I THINK WHEN YOUR PURPOSE AND THE INTENT IS TO PROTECT IT WHILE PERMITTING THIS DEVELOPMENT IN LIMITED AREAS, I THINK THAT YOU HAVE PRETTY MUCH STATED WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I THINK MR. RANDALL HAS MADE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ABOUT IT.
IF YOU KEEP IT A LITTLE BIT VAGUE, IT GIVES YOU MORE CONTROL THAN IF YOU OUTLINE EVERYTHING SO SPECIFIC.
>> I AGREE WITH THAT. THAT'S WHY I SAID USING THE SAME RATIO OF THE LAND THAT WE HAVE TO OFFER.
>> YOU WANT TO MOVE WITH THAT? WHAT EXACTLY IS IT WE'RE MOVING WITH THAT? WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS? WHAT NUMBERS?
>> DO YOU WANT TO PUT NUMBERS ON IT OR NOT PUT NUMBERS ON IT?
>> YOU DON'T WANT TO PUT NUMBERS ON IT.
IT'S THE RATIO OF THE LAND THAT WE HAVE TO OFFER.
YOU RATIO THE LAND WE HAVE TO OFFER. WE PART WOODLAND.
WE PART OPEN LAND, AND YOU MIGHT WANT TO INCLUDE THAT THE BRIARFIELD IS A EMPHASIS OF WHAT WE WANT TO SEE GO INTO SOLID.
>> INCORPORATE THOSE BRIARFIELD AREAS.
>> INCORPORATE THE BRIARFIELD LAND.
>> THAT LOOKS MORE ATTRACTIVE.
>> WITH THE RATIO AND YOU DON'T PUT NUMBERS ON IT BECAUSE THOSE NUMBERS CAN CHANGE, BUT THE RATIO IS GOING TO BE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.
I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.
YOU START PUTTING ACREAGE ON, IT'S GOING TO TIE OUR HANDS, BUT WHEN YOU SAY THAT THE RATIO OF HOW OUR LAND STANDS RIGHT NOW BASED ON FOREST BEING CLEARED, THEN AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION, THEY KNOW THEY'VE GOT TO COME IN HERE WITH PART OF THEIR PROJECT ON WOODLAND AND PART OF IT ON CLEARED LAND WITH THE EMPHASIS ON BRIARFIELD USAGE.
>> ARE THEY GOING TO TELL US THE PERCENTS WHEN THEY COME IN?
THEY KNOW THEY'VE GOT TO COME IN HERE.
WHEN THEY COME IN HERE, WE CAN KNOW THAT THE ACREAGE OF THE FORESTED LAND IN THIS COUNTY.
>> I DIDN'T LOOK AT IT BEFORE I CAME.
>> BUT THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE TOMORROW AND NEXT WEEK.
>> THAT'S WHAT YOUR CONSULTANT THAT'S BEING HIRED TO LOOK AT THE APPLICATION.
TO ME, THAT WOULD BE AN EXPECTATION OF THE CONSULTANT TO GO OUT AND GET THAT NUMBER, COULD BE.
>> DOES THE SOLAR FACILITIES HAVE TO BE NEAR A SUBSTATION WITHIN WHAT, A MILE OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE?
>> ACCORDING TO WHAT WE'LL WRITE IN HERE, WE WANT TO NOT HAVE TO ADD A LOT OF ADDITIONAL LAND.
>> RIGHT. WHAT I'M SAYING, THE BRIARFIELD MIGHT BE IN THE WESTERN PART OF THE COUNTY, THERE MIGHT NOT BE A SUBSTATION WITHIN 20 MILES OF IT, CORRECT? [NOISE] SO THEY COULDN'T USE IT ANYHOW.
[OVERLAPPING] AM I SAYING THAT CORRECTLY?
>> THEY RAN LINES ALL OVER THAT END OF THE COUNTY.
THEY RUN FROM ONE PART TO THE NEXT PART AND THEY PUT IN A SUBSTATION.
>> BECAUSE IF TOUTED INTO [INAUDIBLE]
>> NO, THEY BUILT A SUBSTATION FOR THAT RUN.
>> YEAH, AND THEY STARTED OUT SAYING WE'RE PUTTING IT CLOSE TO A SUBSTATION, AND THEN WHEN THE PROJECT GOT STARTED, THEY BUILT A SUBSTATION.
THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO BECAUSE MONEY ISN'T NO OBJECT.
BRIARFIELD CAN BE 20 MILES AWAY WHERE THEY RUN A WIRE 20 MILES DOWN TO WHERE THEY GOT A SUBSTATION.
ALL THEY GOT TO DO IS ACQUIRE THE ROADWAY, BUT I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE FACT THAT WE'VE GOT CERTAIN AMOUNT OF LAND IN THIS COUNTY AND IT'S NOT ALL CLEARED LAND.
SO WE'RE ASKING ONE INDUSTRY TO TAKE THE LAKE, AND SO WE'RE EMPHASIZING BRIARFIELD AND WE'LL JUST SAY THAT WE WANT 1 PERCENT OF THE RATIO THAT WE HAVE TIED UP AND CLEARED AND FOREST LAND.
THE WORDING MAY HAVE TO COME BACK TO AN ATTORNEY.
I DIDN'T COME PREPARED TONIGHT WITH THE PROPER WORDING, BUT THE WORDING WILL HAVE TO COME FROM AN ATTORNEY, HOW WE WON'T DO IT.
I'D HATE TO TIE DOWN TO X NUMBER OF ACRES SO-AND-SO BECAUSE WE WON'T KEEP IT BROAD LIKE JACK SAID, BUT IT'S JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
WE CAN COME UP WITH THE WORDS AND BRING IT BACK NEXT MONTH.
>> I'M ACTUALLY MENTIONING TO DO THAT.
LET'S GET IT FINALIZED AND GET IT IN THERE.
>> IT'S A GOOD IDEA. WE'RE GOING TO PURSUE IT.
>> LET ME GIVE A SUGGESTION TO TAG ITEM NUMBER 3.
WE MOVE THE PERIOD AND INCLUDE WITH OPEN AND WOODSLAND RATIOS BEING CONSIDERED.
[01:10:08]
>> WHICH THREE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
>> THERE'S LITTLE PAGE, DISTRICT 3.
>> DISTRICT RIGS. DISTRICT REGULATIONS.
>> ON THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS?
>> WITH OPEN AND WOODSLAND RATIOS BEING CONSIDERED.
IF THEY HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS, THEN SEND THEM TO THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING.
>> WHAT DID WE REFER TO IT EARLIER? FORESTLAND? DID WE REFER TO IT WOODSLAND EARLIER OR THE FOREST LAND?
>> IN THE PURPOSE AND INTENT, YOU CALL IT FARM AND FORESTED LAND.
>> RATHER THAN WOODSLAND, BUT FORESTED LAND.
>> FORESTED LAND, AND WHAT WAS THE OTHER OPEN LAND?
>> MR. JASON SAID OPEN AND WOODLANDS.
THE PURPOSE AND INTENT SAYS FARM AND FORESTED LAND.
YOU CAN MAKE A MATCH OR YOU CAN MAKE THEM DIFFERENT.
>> I WOULD THINK WE WOULD KEEP THEM MATCHING.
THAT MIGHT BE SUFFICIENT THERE, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY TO LOOK AT IT.
BUT I SECOND THE MOTION [OVERLAPPING] IN THE GUIDELINE.
>> THEN WE WANT TO VOTE ON THIS.
>> HARRIS WE ARE NOT DOING ANY VOTES. [OVERLAPPING]
>> DO YOU WANT MISS LOUIS TO COME BACK WITH THE WORDAGE?
>> WHERE THE MOTION WAS MADE THAT WE WAIT UNTIL NEXT WEEK.
>> WERE ARE NOT DOING ANY MOTIONS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT DIDN'T YOU MAKE A MOTION A WHILE AGO?
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING THAT [INAUDIBLE] MADE A MOTION AND I SECONDED IT.
>> THEN WE PROCEED WITH THAT PLAN.
TAKE IT, BRING IT BACK, DOCUMENT IT, TAKE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING AND MOVE ON.
>> TO CHANGE THE STATE LAW NUMBER 3, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> TO DO ONE-TO-ONE RATIO, IS THAT WHAT WE ARE SAYING?
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE ARE JUST SAYING WE GOING TO MOVE IT UNTIL NEXT MONTH AND LOOK AT IT.
WITH THIS IDEA, I HAVE SECONDED YOUR MOTION SO YOU WON'T REWORD IT, HOWEVER, YOU WANT TO DO IT.
>> DO WE REALLY NEED A MOTION TO JUST GO FOLLOW IT? WE'RE JUST DISCUSSING [OVERLAPPING]
I SAID, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT IDEA. I JUST SAW THAT.
>> WILL YOU WITHDRAW THE MOTION? [INAUDIBLE] PUT HIS CARD OR YOU WANT TO CONSIDER GO FOLLOW IT?
>> THAT WAY. IT'LL BE ON THERE IF YOU MOVE IT BACK.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, THAT WE COME BACK AND REVIEW THE NUMBER 3 ITEM ON A DISTRICT REGULATIONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO REWRITE IT TO INCLUDE BOTH, WOODED OR FORESTED AND OPEN LAND [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THEM LANGUAGE MATCH.
IT WOULD SAY WITH FARM AND FORESTED LAND RATIOS BEING CONSIDERED.
>> DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT MOTION?
>> NONE OF THE OTHER WORDS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH MOTIONS JUST SO YOU KNOW.
>> NOW, ARE WE READY TO MOVE ON TO WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO TALK ABOUT TONIGHT?
>> [OVERLAPPING] NO, WE ARE GOING TO BRING IT BACK AND VOTE ON WHEN WE COME BACK.
I JUST MADE A MOTION TO PUT IT IN PLACE, BRING IT BACK WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BRING IT BACK.
>> THIS MOTION DOES NOT REQUIRE A VOTE? [LAUGHTER]
>> IF IT'S A MOTION. [OVERLAPPING]
>> LET'S GET IT IN PRINTING, LET'S GET IT IN WRITING.
>> IF IT'S A MOTION SECOND, WE NEED TO PROCEED.
>> YES, YOU DO NEED A [OVERLAPPING].
>> IS THERE ANY OTHER SKETCH THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHERE WE ARE AT?
>> IS THAT ALL THAT YOU'RE GOING TO JUST MAKE CHANGES ON THIS FIRST START OF THE ORDINANCE?
>> BECAUSE THEN WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET TO WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO DISCUSS TONIGHT. [LAUGHTER]
>> IF WE REALLY ARE GOING TO VOTE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY, AYE.
ANYTHING ELSE ON THE GENERAL DISTRICT STANDARDS.
ANYTHING THERE THAT SEEMS OUT OF THE ORDINARY.
THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE THERE, IS IT MENTIONS CORPORATE LIMITS OF ANY INCORPORATED TOWN.
YOU GET SEVEN TOWNS IN THE COUNTY.
>>ARE THEY NOT ALL INCORPORATED?
>> THERE ARE SIX INCORPORATED TOWNS.
THERE ARE SIX MAYORS IN SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY.
>> WHAT LITTLE SETTLEMENT IS NOT INCORPORATED.
>> TROUVILLE IS NOT INCORPORATED.
>> SHELBY IS NOT INCORPORATED EITHER.
>> THE INCORPORATED TOWNS ARE BOTKINS [INAUDIBLE].
[01:15:03]
EVERYTHING ELSE IS NOT INCORPORATED.IT MAY HAVE A NAME AND A PLACE, BUT THERE ARE SIX MAYORS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT PAGE? I'M GOING TO CALL IT PAGE 2, OR PAGE 1 RATHER. LET'S FLIP OVER.
ANYTHING IN THE SECOND PAGE? [NOISE] WE GO TO THE THIRD PAGE.
ANYBODY HAVING A NOTICE THERE? I ENCOURAGE YOU ALL MAKE NOTES WHEN YOU READ THIS.
WE WILL MOVE OUR WAY UP TO COME TO THE MEETING.
WHAT I DID LIKE, AND I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS.
UNDER SOME OF THESE PROVISIONS, THAT THE GOVERNMENT BODY WILL STILL HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO MODIFY THE BUFFER AREAS, WHICH I LIKE.
HOW YOU PUT THAT IN THAT UNMUTED CIRCUMSTANCE, WHERE A HOUSE ENDS UP BEING AND SURROUNDED.
IF IT WAS LIKE A WHOLE ISSUE OF WHAT A DIVINE SOLO PROJECT.
AT LEAST THEY WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY TO MAYBE ALL FOLLOWED A LITTLE DIFFERENT OF BOTH.
BUT THAT'S THE WAY I PERCEIVE THIS.
>> YES. IN AREAS WHERE A BUFFER ISN'T REQUIRED AS IF [OVERLAPPING].
IF IT COULD BE A NATURAL BUFFER, THAT DOESN'T NEED WHAT COULD BE A SO-CALLED BACK FORWARD IT NOBODY CAN SEE IT ANYWAY.
>> COULD BE A CREEK OR A STREAM OR RIVER.
NEED TO BUFFER THE PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SOUTHAMPTON PARKWAY.
>> ON THE BOTTOM, I'M GOING TO CALL IT PAGE 3, THE LANDSCAPING, IT'S NEXT TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH.
THE FIRST WORD THAT IF THE LANDSCAPE IS PROPOSED.
THE LAST STATEMENT, IT DOES STATE THEM TO BE INSTALLED WHEN, THAT'S NOT WHELM.
THEY'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN THE VEGETATION FOR THE THREE YEARS.
WELL, THE NUISANCE PROJECT, WE STILL HAVING SOME TROUBLE OF SOME OF THE TREES SURVIVING AND WHAT EFFECT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE.
I DON'T KNOW WHY SOME OF THESE ESTABLISHED TREES MUST HAVE TERMINAL, BUT I CAN'T GET THEM TO TAKE ROOT, BUT ARE WE SAYING THAT AFTER THREE YEARS, THEY CAN ABANDON THAT TASK BY GETTING THOSE TREES TO TAKE ROOT AND GROW?
>> JUST BECAUSE OF THE MAINTENANCE PART OF IT.
THEY'RE JUST NOT MAINTAINING THEM LIKE FERTILIZATION SCHEDULES AND ALL OF THAT STUFF.
>> ONCE A SITE PLAN IS APPROVED, IT IS IN EFFECT UNTIL THE PROPERTY CHANGES USE.
I KNOW IN A CITY, IF YOU APPLY FOR A BUSINESS AND YOU'D GET A SITE PLAN, THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN THAT LANDSCAPE PLAN AS LONG AS THE BUSINESSES
>> [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S CORRECT.
>> OCCUPIED. WHO IS GOING TO ENFORCE THAT? IS IT OUR BUILDING OFFICIALS GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO TO THESE SITES TO ENFORCE IF THE VEGETATION IS DEAD?
>> BUT THEY HOPE YOU'LL REPLANT IT.
THEY COME BACK AND REPLANT IT, BUT FOR SOME REASON, WE HAVEN'T GOT THEM ALL GOING YET.
>> WHAT IS THE TERM THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE PLANTINGS? IS IT CERTIFIED PLANTS?
DID THEY GET IT FROM AND IT GOES THROUGH INSPECTIONS FOR OUR SOCIETY.
>> THAT'S IN THIS SECTION THAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT TONIGHT.
>> THAT'S INTELLECTUAL GENETICS AREA.
>> WHAT I THINK WHAT YOU WOULD COMMENT ABOUT THE THREE YEARS OF INSTALLATION.
BASICALLY, IF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DEEMS IT, THEY NEED A BUFFER BECAUSE OF A HOUSE, CHURCH, WORSHIP, WHATEVER THE LIST IS, SENDING PRIOR APPLICATION ON A PARAGRAPH, AND IT HAS TO BE OF THAT HEIGHT WITHIN A THREE-YEAR PERIOD.
THEY CAN'T PUT A LITTLE SHRUB-LIKE THIS, AND IN THREE YEARS IS ONLY GOING TO BE 4 FEET.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT A BIGGER NURSERY STOCKING SO IT GETS MATURE FASTER.
[01:20:03]
>> THAT'S WHAT THIS PARAGRAPH SAYS.
IT HAS TO ACHIEVE THE REQUIRED SCREENING EFFECTS WITHIN THREE YEARS.
>> THEY GOT TO PUT SOMETHING 10 FOOT TALL.
>> THEY HAVE TO PUT SOMETHING THAT GROWS QUICKLY, YES. THEN INTERSPERSE IT.
UPPER PINES, THEY GROW QUICKLY, BUT THEY ONLY LIVE 10 OR 15 YEARS.
SO WHEN YOU PLANT THEM, YOU HAVE TO INTERSPERSE THEM WITH SOMETHING THAT GROWS MORE SLOWLY BUT THEN IS GOING TO STILL BE ALIVE AFTER THE NORFOLK ISLAND PINES NO LONGER ARE ALIVE.
BUT THEY HAVE TO ACHIEVE THEIR SCREENING PURPOSES WITHIN THREE YEARS.
>> THAT'S NOT HAPPENING EITHER.
THEY COULD HAVE STARTED OUT VERY SMALL.
>> THE COUNTY DIDN'T HAVE ANY LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS AT THAT TIME.
I'M JUST SAYING THEY PUT SMALLEST THING, I THINK CALLED THE LEAST AMOUNT OF MONEY.
THEY DIDN'T OBVIOUSLY CARE ABOUT THE SCREENING.
>> WHEN THEY BUILT THAT INSTALLATION AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO PLANT ANYTHING EXCEPT GRASS TO COVER THE GROUND.
>> THAT'S WHY I LIKE MY BERM. [LAUGHTER]
I SAW IT. THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY FOR IT.
YOU PUT GRASS ON THAT [INAUDIBLE] YOU GET THE SCREENING VERY WELL.
>> ANY OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT WHERE WE ARE AT SO FAR?
>> [OVERLAPPING] SHOES AT ME AND I KNOW WE'VE ALREADY BEEN BY THE PAGE THAT I WAS AFRAID TO SAY SOMETHING, BUT I FEEL LIKE I NEED TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> BACK ON THE PREVIOUS PAGE [OVERLAPPING]
>> NUMBER 2, NOBODY HAD ANY COMMENT ON.
>> IN THE BUFFER AREA, THE LAST SENTENCE OF THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH, IT SAYS ANY COMBINATION OF LANDSCAPE AND FENCING BERMS, NATURAL AREAS MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THIS STANDARD WHICH SHALL SCREEN THE PROJECT FROM VIEW, FROM THE EXTERIOR PRODUCT.
THE NATURAL AREAS, I GUESS AS LONG AS EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE NATURAL AREA OF BUFFER THAT EVERYBODY SEEMS TO BE IN FAVOR OF, IS NOT FAVORABLE FOR THE SOLAR PANELS BECAUSE THE TREES GROW HIGHER THAN WHAT THEY WOULDN'T [OVERLAPPING] THINK TO BE FOR SO THE NATURAL AND THE WAY WE THINK ABOUT IT IS GOING TO [NOISE] BUT THE COMPANIES THAT ARE MANAGING THOSE SOLAR PANELS AND I COULD LET THE TREES THAT SHADE GROW UP SO IT'S LIKE [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S NOT GOING TO BE NATURAL THE WAY WE THINK NATURAL IS, AND I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> I THOUGHT THE PROJECT GOING TO LONG RUN WHEN IT DIDN'T HAVE NATURAL.
>> THEY CUT THE TIMBER THAT WAS GROWING UP.
>> THEY GO KILL [OVERLAPPING].
>> THEY DIDN'T LAY THE TIMER IN THE BUFFERED AREA.
>> THEY CUT IT AND NOW IT'S PLANTED BACK.
>> THE SECTION OF WORKSHEET THAT I'M WORKING ON NOW, I THINK BECAUSE IT ALL RUNS TOGETHER, THE LAST COUPLE OF PAGES TALKS ABOUT THE AREAS THAT NATURAL VEGETATION HAS RETAINED.
FIRST, THE LANDSCAPE PROFESSIONAL HAS TO CERTIFY THAT IT'S IN HEALTHY SHAPE AND IT'S GOING TO STAY.
IF IT DOESN'T DO THE SCREENING JOB, THEN YEAR-ROUND, THEN IT HAS TO BE SUPPLEMENTED WITH SOMETHING THAT IS OF SIZE AND TYPE THAT IS GOING TO PROVIDE THAT SCREENING YEAR-ROUND.
A LOT OF THE NATURAL AREAS ARE DECIDUOUS SO THEY'RE THERE IN THE FALL AND WINTER AND IF IT'S ABOUT A PLACE OF WORSHIP OR SCHOOL OR HOUSE, THAT BUFFER HAS TO BE SUPPLEMENTED WITH SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO PROVIDE THAT SCREENING YEAR-ROUND.
>> THE OTHER THING I HAD WAS THE FACT THAT WE'VE GOT PLANTING SEASON.
WE ALLOW THE BUFFERS TO BE PLANTED ONLY DURING PLANTING SEASONS AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S BEST TO PLANT TREES AND THINGS IN THE FALL, AND LET THEM GET TO ROOT BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU PLANT SOMETHING IN THE SPRINGTIME, AND KEEP IT WATERED, IT WILL ALSO LIVE.
>> CORRECT. THEY ARE STILL LIMITED?
I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE, BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO BE A SCREEN THAT I THINK A POTENTIAL DEVELOPER IS GOING TO HIDE BEHIND THEN SAY,
[01:25:02]
AYE, A PLANT SEASON IS NOT [OVERLAPPING] RIGHT.>> WELL, MOST OF THE YEAR IS PLANTING SEASON.
SOME LOCALITIES SAY YOU CAN'T PLAN ANYTHING IN JUNE, JULY, AND AUGUST, THAT'S A REQUIRED LANDSCAPE FEATURE.
BUT NINE MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR MUST RETURN OR YOU CAN PLANT STUFF.
YOU CAN PLANT IN JUNE, JULY, AND AUGUST IF YOU'RE GOING TO WATER ENOUGH BUT [OVERLAPPING].
>> ALL THESE BIG SCALE PROJECTS, I JUST DON'T SEE THEM BEING ABLE TO WATER OR MAKE IT HAPPEN.
I THINK, YOU SAID, YOU SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING A NUISANCE, THEY'RE NOT EVEN FERTILIZATION AND WATERING AND PRUNING AND IT'S JUST NOT HAPPENING.
I THINK IF YOU TAKE OUT THAT WHERE THEY HAVE TO PLANT IN THE SUMMERTIME, IT'S JUST GOOD.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO RE-PLANT AGAIN. IT'S ALL GOING TO DIE.
THEY NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THE BUFFER.
>> WELL, DEPARTMENT DMMA, WHICH HAS BEEN CHANGED IN VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, THEY HAVE SOME VERBIAGE AND SOME OF THAT STUFF PERTAINING TO PLAN.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT WILL BE HELPFUL IN THIS OR NOT, AND I'VE NEVER LOOKED AT IT THAT MUCH, BUT THEY DO PERTAIN TO [NOISE].
>> ANYWAY, WE MOVE ON UNTIL [OVERLAPPING].
WELL, I MEAN, ANOTHER THING, MIDDLE OF THE PAGE ITEM F. THE LAST FIVE WORDS.
VIEWSHED PROVIDED BY THE BUFFER, MAYBE THAT'S JUST MY UNDERSTANDING, THE SHED WHAT'S THAT MEAN?
>> VIEWSHED SHOULD BE ONE WORDED.
A WORD THAT MEANS WHAT YOU CAN SEE.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT? IT SEEMS THE BIG QUESTION WAS UP IN THE FRONT, ABOUT THE LANDMASSES BEING EQUATED.
>> LET ME REWRITE THIS, BUT WE'LL START THE NEXT MEETING WITH THAT DISCUSSION.
WE'LL SEE HOW YOU WRITE IT UP.
>> NEXT MEETING, YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AT SECTION 1 AGAIN AND SECTION 2 AGAIN AND NEW SECTION 3, RIGHT?
>> BECAUSE WE JUST STAY ON SCHEDULE. I THINK WE HAVE TO.
>> WE NEED TO GET ON WITH IT. YES.
>> THANK HEAVENS THERE ARE NO PUBLIC HEARINGS NEXT MONTH.
>> GOOD. IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE [LAUGHTER] RISING BACK.
ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE UNSOLVED?
>> NOW YOU HAVE SECTION 2 TO LOOK AT, THE WORKSHEET THAT I THINK YOU, [NOISE] THE BEGINNING BEFORE CHRISTMAS, PAGES 4 THROUGH 6.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL GET THEM.
>> IT WAS MAILED TO YOU IN AN ENVELOPE, SO IT'S PROBABLY FOLDED.
>> I GOT A FEELING I DID NOT BRING MINE TONIGHT. I APOLOGIZE.
>> GO AHEAD AND SAVE IT, LUKE.
>> I'M SORRY, I THINK I FORGOT TO BRING IT. I APOLOGIZE.
>> MR. [INAUDIBLE] HAS THE CREASE MARKS IN? [BACKGROUND].
>> I'M LOOKING [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER].
>> THIS TALKS ABOUT MORE LANDSCAPING AND IT TALKED ABOUT CHARITY OF 50 PERCENT, AND THEN [OVERLAPPING] GETS REDUCED TO 40 PERCENT AND THEN GETS REDUCED TO 30 PERCENT AND THEN DOWN TO 15 PERCENT.
THE QUESTION WAS, DO YOU WANT THE BOARD TO BE ABLE TO REDUCE OR ALTER THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON THE SPECIFICS OF THE SITE? IT SEEMS LOGICAL AND IT MAY GIVE THE BOARD LATITUDE TO REDUCE LANDSCAPING IN AN AREA WHERE IT ISN'T NEEDED AND INCREASE IT ELSEWHERE.
AFTER DECEMBER MEETING, THE COMMISSION DECIDED A FLAT $50,000 LANDSCAPE BOND WAS PREFERRED.
THE LANDSCAPE PROFESSIONALS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE FINDINGS TO THE COUNTY AND TO PROVIDE A SCHEDULE TO FIX ANY PROBLEMS FOUND IN A REASONABLE LENGTH OF TIME PRIOR TO THE END OF THE NEXT PLANNING SEASON.
[01:30:03]
ANYTHING ELSE? THAT $50,000 BOND WOULD BE FOREVER AS LONG AS THE PROJECT'S THERE.IF IT GETS USED, THEN IT HAS TO GET REFILLED.
THAT WOULD BE FOR LANDSCAPING, FENCING IF A NEIGHBOR EXPERIENCE GLARE, WHICH IS IMPROBABLE BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OF THE PANELS IS NOT TO CREATE GLARE TO RETAIN ALL THAT LIGHT, BUT THAT $50,000 WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR USE AS NEEDED AND THEN REFILLED.
>> [OVERLAPPING] ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT.
>> [NOISE] THE NEXT ONE TALKED ABOUT FENCING.
THIS FROM THE CAROLINE COUNTY 1, FENCING SHALL NOT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF EIGHT FEET TOP BY THREE STRANDS OF RAZOR WIRE OR OTHERWISE AS REQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE.
PERHAPS THE FENCING REQUIREMENTS SHOULD JUST REFER TO THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE, THAT'S THE MOST UP-TO-DATE.
RATHER THAN SAYING EIGHT FEET AND THREE STRANDS RAZOR WIRE, THEY MIGHT CHANGE OVER THE YEARS, AND THEN THE COUNTIES WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHANGE, IF WE JUST SAY, YOU HAVE TO MEET THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE, THAT SEEMS TO BE THE CLEANEST WAY TO DO IT, TO ME.
>> THAT WILL ALWAYS BE SOME TYPE OF CHAIN LINK FENCE, WOULD YOU SAY?
>> I THINK THE FENCE BECAME A BIG ISSUE BECAUSE THE EASTERN SHORE PROJECT IN THE VERY BEGINNING WAS [INAUDIBLE] WIRE FENCE AND THAT'S WHY WE HAD A BIG TO DO WITH THE FENCE, BUT LONGEST CHAIN LENGTH [OVERLAPPING] WILL TAKE CHANGES.
I'LL TAKE CARE OF THE FIRST ONE.
>> NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE WOULD REQUIRE [OVERLAPPING] FENCE WITH RAZOR WIRE.
>> THEY REQUIRE WITH RAZOR WIRE?
THE COUNTY CODE TODAY REQUIRE SEVEN FEET WITH RAZOR WIRE AND DOESN'T TELL HOW MANY STRANDS OF RAZOR WIRE BUT THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE TODAY SAYS EIGHT FEET AND THREE STRANDS OF RAZOR WIRE.
THIS TALKS ABOUT THE EXCEEDING 15 PERCENT SLOPES.
ALL SITE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PERFORMED IN PHASES SO THAT NOT MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE LAND DISTURBANCE AREA REFLECTED ON A SITE PLAN SHALL BE DISTURBED WITHOUT STABILIZATION AT ANYTIME.
SITE-SPECIFIC PLANS SHALL BE PREPARED, APPROVED.
THAT MAY LIMIT OUR PHASE THE AMOUNT OF DISTURBED AREA, AND FOR PURPOSES OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, STABILIZATION SHALL MEAN THE APPLICATION OF SEEDS STRAW.
THE APPLICANT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY COSTS INCURRED BY THE COUNTY.
THE COUNTY HAS EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ORDINANCES SO THAT PERHAPS SHOULD BE INCLUDED AS WELL AS THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK BECAUSE COUNTIES CAN BE MORE STRICT THAN THE HANDBOOK, BUT THEY CANNOT BE LESS STRICT.
[INAUDIBLE] AREAS TO BE DEVELOPED, IT MIGHT NOT BE ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL TO CLEAR IN PHASES.
THOSE ARE TWO THINGS YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER.
>> WHEN YOU START PUSHING STOPS IN TIMBERLAND, YOU'RE GOING TO RUN INTO THE CORE OF ENGINEERS' ISSUES THERE WITH GETTING INTO WETLANDS AND THE STOPS.
I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH OF THAT CAN BE DONE.
THAT'LL BE INTERESTING TOPIC, I GUESS DOWN THE ROAD.
BUT THAT'S WHY I'M ASSUMING THEY WERE DOING OVER FIELDS BECAUSE THERE ARE NO REGULATIONS WITH PUSHING STOPS WITH THE CORE.
>> WELL, TO TAKE ON TO DEVELOP FORT LANE IS GOING TO PROBABLY HAD TO BE HIGH ELEVATION LANDS.
I DON'T SEE WHAT HAPPENED IN THE BALKANS AREA HAPPENING AGAIN, THAT WAS VERY UNUSUAL WHAT THEY DID IT BACK WITH DETAILED ME TO DEQ HEADS CONTROLLED OVER EVERYBODY AND THEY ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN UP THERE.
>> THEY NEVER ENTERED THAT SITE ONE TIME.
>> REALLY, THEY WOULD HAVE TURNED THAT [OVERLAPPING] CRAZY.
ANYWAY. MS. LEWIS, FIRST, I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD INCORPORATE.
IF THIS COUNTY HAS ANYTHING IN ADDITION? I WOULD SAY THAT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO THE STATE CODE AND SUPPOSE IF THERE IS A FOREST AREA AS MUCH AS I HATE THAT MIGHT HAPPEN.
[01:35:01]
I DO YOU SEE WHY I MISS A DAY.I WANT YOU TO COMMENT IF THEY'RE GOING TO CLEAR OFF A PORTION OF HIGHLAND WHERE IT'S GOING TO STUMP ON IT.
IT'S PROBABLY MORE PRACTICAL TO DO THE ENTIRE SITE INSTEAD OF DOING AN PHASES, WOULD YOU AGREE?
>> FROM A STANDPOINT CONSTRUCTION, I DON'T ENDORSE IT WITHOUT REGULARLY MORE PRACTICAL TO GO IN AND FINISH THAT PROCESS.
I WOULD SAY TO ALLOW THAT TO NOT HAVE BE DONE IN PHASES FOR THE FOREST AREA.
>> WELL, CAN WE LOOK AT THE TIMBER ASPECT ON TIMBERLAND IS GOING THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY, ITS BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE'LL USE THE GUIDELINE? YES.
>> OKAY. THIS DOES REQUIRE THAT EVEN IF YOU DO IT MUCH EARLIER THAN YOU NEED IT, YOU NEED TO STABILIZE IT WITH [INAUDIBLE] STRAW.
>> DO I HEAR ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
>> I'M GOOD WITH IT. [INAUDIBLE].
I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT WITH THE TITANIUM MINES THAT WORK THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PORT, THEY STOPPED FOR NOTHING.
THEY WENT RIGHT ON THROUGH WETLANDS.
THERE WAS NO BOUNDARIES WHATSOEVER SAYING THEY GOT THE BLESSING OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT.
WHEN IT COMES TO THE SOLO, THEY MAY GET THE VERY BLESSINGS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT.
UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT WON'T DO IT, THEN THEY CAN'T DO.
BUT I AGREE WITH ANDERS THAT THEY'RE PERFECT.
IF THEY GET INTO WOODLANDS AND ITS WETLANDS, I GUARANTEE YOU THEY PULLED THEM UP POLITICAL STRENGTH AND GET IT DONE.
TITANIUM PEOPLE DO, OF COURSE THEY'RE BANKRUPT AND I AM, BUT I STILL DID IT.
I HAD A GUY FROM DMME, I ASKED THAT QUESTION TOO AND HE SAID THAT'S NOT IN MY DISTRICT AND I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
>> ALL RIGHT, WE'LL PROCEED WITH NUMBER THREE.
>> OKAY. SIGNAGE JUST SAYS ONE SIGN OF EACH SIDE ENTRANCE THAT PROVIDES INFORMATION.
I BELIEVE SOUTHAMPTON HAS SIGNS ALONG THE ENTIRETY OF THE FENCE WITH A CONTACT NUMBER.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO INCLUDE THAT.
I THINK THE DISCUSSION WAS AT THE TIME, IF A DOG OR A DEER GETS OVER THE FENCE OR UNDER THE FENCE.
HE WANTED TO SEE PRETTY QUICKLY WHO WOULD CALL TO BE ABLE TO GET IN THERE, GET SOMEBODY IN THERE, RATHER THAN GO AND FIND AN ENTRANCE AND WHATEVER.
>> ON A CASE LIKE THIS, THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE HAS CONTACT NUMBERS FOR FACILITY LIKE THAT, WOULDN'T IT?
IF YOUR DOG'S ON THE INSIDE AND YOU CALL THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, WHO CALLS THE WHOEVER WHO CALLED.
IF THERE WERE JUST TWO SQUARE FOOT SIGNS AROUND THE OUTSIDE THE FENCE.
[INAUDIBLE] SEEM TO IMPOSE ON ANYBODY, BUT PROVIDES INFORMATION THAT'S NEEDED READILY.
>> I UNDERSTAND, I AGREE WITH THAT.
THE CAROLINE COUNTY 1 SAYS, SHALL NOT EXCEED 15 FEET IN HEIGHT WHEN ORIENTED AT MAXIMUM TILT.
DOWN SOUTHAMPTON SOLAR HAS A HEIGHT LIMIT OF 18 FEET BECAUSE THE PANELS THEY USED WERE THAT TALL WHEN THEY'RE PERFECTLY VERTICAL.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO SAY 18 FEET.
>> WE [INAUDIBLE] CHANGE THAT 18.
>> RAISING IT FROM 18. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF TECHNOLOGY CHANGES AND THEY GOT NARROW PANELS, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK.
WANT TO MAKE A CALL, YOU SAY THEY GOT 18 HIGHER THAT NIGHT?
>> I GUESS THREE-FOOT JUST BRING LITTLE CONTINUITY BETWEEN WHAT WE HAVE.
>> I'M JUST THINKING WE TALK ABOUT THE PANEL TO GETTING A SMALL ONE THEY ALREADY HAVE THEM ON SHIPS I THINK ITS LITTLE BIT PANEL.
PUT UP THE 18 FEET TALL JUST BECAUSE THERE'S TREES AROUND THEM [INAUDIBLE] AND THEY SAY WHERE WE'D GET MORE SUNLIGHT.
>> WELL, THE ONLY TIME THAT IT'S 18 FEET TALL IS WHEN IT'S PERFECTLY PERPENDICULAR.
[NOISE] THE LEGS AREN'T THAT TALL.
IT'S JUST THAT TIME OF THE DAY THAT IT SWITCHES FROM FACING THIS WAY TO FACING THIS WAY.
>>THAT IS WITH THE PRESENT TECHNOLOGY.
>> BUT IT CAN'T BE ANY TALLER THAN THAT.
[01:40:02]
NUMBER 5 AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT PAGE SAYS SITE ACCESS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO MITIGATE SITE VISIBILITY FROM THE PUBLIC ROAD, AND THE QUESTION IS, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH? DO YOU WANT TO SAY THE PANELS CAN'T RUN PARALLEL [NOISE] TO AN ABIDING RIGHT-OF-WAY.
DEPENDING ON THE LOCATION OF THE ROAD, THERE MIGHT NOT BE POSSIBLE THE BUFFER SHOULD ACCOMPLISH THE SCREENING, SO MAYBE THIS NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.
SEEMS MAYBE WE WANT TO LIMIT THIS ABILITY FROM HOME SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, STATE SCENIC LIKE RIVERS MORE SO THAN ROADWAYS BECAUSE ROADWAYS WILL HAVE SOME BUFFERING.
AT THE DECEMBER MEETING THE COMMISSION DECIDED ON A 100 FOOT BUFFER ALONG PROPERTY LINES OF SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, AND RESIDENCES, NOT RESIDENTIAL ZONING AS IT IS NOW.
DO YOU WANT A 100 FEET ALONG ALL PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY AND STATE SCENIC LIKE RIVERS AS WELL.
YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THE GREATER THE BUFFER IS, THE MORE LAND IS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE MEGAWATTS, BUT IF BUFFERS CAN NARROW ON PLACES WHERE IT ISN'T NECESSARILY THERE MAY BE THE EXTRA BUFFER WHICH WON'T IMPACT THE PROJECT.
IF YOU THINK OF A BALLOON, YOU SQUEEZE A BALLOON, IT GETS BIGGER HERE AND GET SMALLER HERE.
THAT MAYBE WHAT YOU DO WITH BUFFERS THAT CAN VARY IN WIDTH.
YOU DON'T TAKE UP MORE LAND AREA ALTOGETHER.
YOU JUST TAKE UP MORE LAND AREA AND BUFFER IN THIS PLACE AND A LITTLE LESS LAND AREA HERE.
BUT THAT SENTENCE FROM THE CAROLINE COUNTY ORDINANCE THAT SAYS SITE ACCESS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO MITIGATE SITE VISIBILITY FROM THE PUBLIC ROAD, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT MEANS.
WHETHER YOU SEE A ROW OF SOLAR PANELS THIS WAY OR YOU SEE A NUMBER OF THE ENDS OF ROWS OF SOLAR PANELS RUNNING PERPENDICULAR TO THE ROAD.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT CHANGES ITS IMPACT ON YOU VERY MUCH WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING BY.
THEY WANT TO ADD THE 100 FOOT BUFFER ALONG PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY IN STATE SCENIC RIVERS, AS WELL AS CHURCHES, SCHOOLS, AND RESIDENCES?
>> I WOULD AGREE BECAUSE IN THAT LAND IS GOING TO BE COUNTED AS THE ONE PERCENT.
>> IT'S NOT A SOLAR PANEL IS STILL INCLUDED IN THAT ONE PERCENT.
>> BUT TO BUILD A BERM, YOU CAN DO IT 50 FEET.
>> BERM WAS ON MY MIND, BUT I'M SCARED TO BRING IT IN [LAUGHTER] ANYWAY.
I LIKED THAT IDEA TO KEEPING 100 FEET ALONG THE ROAD, YOU CAN DO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SOMEBODY BRINGS UP, THEY JUST DON'T.
WHY DID WE CAN I'D LIKE SOME WAY IN THIS ORDINATE I WOULD LIKE THE GOVERNING BODY TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE A BERM WHEN IS NECESSARY.
>> IN A CONDITION, [INAUDIBLE].
>> I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE. I THINK THAT
>> IF YOU THINK OF YOU'RE DRIVING ALONG THE ROAD, AND THE ROAD IS AT THIS ELEVATION AND THE LAND THE BERM LAND IS FIVE OR EIGHT FEET ABOVE THAT.
MIGHT NOT NEED ANY EXPLAINING. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT ON MY END OF THE CANYON
>> YEAH. THE BERM WOULD COVER THE BLOCK D.
>> I UNDERSTAND THE LAND DREWABLE AND CHEMPER AREAS.
>> IT MIGHT CALL ELEVATION AND MIGHT BE 25 FEET.
>> THAT'S WHAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES IS GIVE THIS BODY.
THE AUTHORITY TO LOOK AT IT AND FLIP OVER THEM AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO HAVE WE GO OVER THEM AS WELL TO MAKE IT APPROPRIATE FOR THE SITE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
>> I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE THAT A GOVERNMENT BODY REALIZES THEY HAVE BERM AS A TWO, AND I GUESS IT JUST STICKS OUT IN MY MIND BECAUSE OF A GRAVEL PIT THEY SAID TO STOP AGAIN, I BROUGHT THIS OUT.
IT AMAZED ME HOW WELL THEY HID THAT WITH SELOTY AND YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT WAS BIAS.
YOU'D GET LESS COMPLAINTS WHEN PEOPLE DO NOT SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
SAME THING WITH THE SOLAR, I WOULD THINK THEY WOULD CERTAINLY BE ENCOURAGED UNLESS THE GUY DRIVING THAT SEES WHAT I'M DOING THE BETTER OFF WITH IT.
>> BUT IT HAS TO COME THROUGH THERE SO YOU CAN MAKE THOSE COMMENTS. WHEN IT COMES THROUGH HERE.
>> PAY ATTENTION, ABC, WHATEVER.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO LIVE FOREVER, SO SOME WAYS [NOISE] PUT IN BOTH PRINT SOME OF THE TOOLS THERE ALL THERE.
>> GIVE IT SOME NOTICE THEN WILL YOU.
[01:45:01]
>> NUMBER 6 IS ABOUT SECURITY [NOISE] LIGHTING.
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF ANY LIGHT STRUCTURE SHALL NOT EXCEED 20 FEET ALONG THE EXTERIOR OR WITHIN THE APPROVED [NOISE] BUFFER AREA, AND 35 [NOISE] FEET IN THE INTERIOR AND MOTION SENSITIVE LIGHTING SHALL BE USED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE.
EXCEPT FOR ENTRANCES ALL LIGHTING SHALL BE INTERNAL TO THE FACILITY.
DO YOU WANT ANY CHANGES TO THAT? THAT SEEMS LOGICAL.
>> ANY QUESTIONS? [NOISE] WELL PROCEED SEVEN.
>> NUMBER 7 [NOISE] IS NEW OR RELOCATED ON-SITE ELECTRICAL INTERCONNECTION SHALL BE INSTALLED UNDERGROUND UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AND SO THE QUESTION IS IF THE BOARD WISHES TO HAVE MADE ABOVE GROUND POWER LINES, IT'S LIKELY JUST BE OUTLINED IN A SITE PLAN AND NOT REQUIRE A SPECIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT? IT SEEMS TO ME BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY GETTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SOLAR INSTALLATION AS A WHOLE.
THAT COULD JUST BE ONE OF THEIR CONDITIONS THAT IS PART OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST.
>> I AGREE [INAUDIBLE] ON THE GROUND IS DO WE HAVE LANGUAGE FOR THE SCHEMATICS TO BE, I HAVE LEARNED WHEN IS UNDER GROUND WIRING IS LOCATED.
>> THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE REQUIRES THAT.
>> THE COUNTY WILL HAVE THAT WHOLE FILE.
VERY GOOD. I'M GOOD WITH THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> YEAH. I WAS SITTING HERE THINKING THAT SO 30 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD WHEN WE TURN TO THAT, WE CAN PULL OUT THE SCHEMATIC [NOISE] [INAUDIBLE].
>> THEIR PLANS WERE, I DON'T KNOW, SEVERAL INCHES THICK.
>> NUMBER 8, [NOISE] THE PROJECT SHALL NOT EXCEED THE NOISE LIMITATIONS THROUGHOUT SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY YET THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY DURING CONSTRUCTION NOISE SHALL BE MINIMIZED USING ACCEPTABLE INDUSTRY PRACTICES FOR BACKUP ALARMS THAT DO NOT EMIT TRADITIONAL WARNING SOUNDS.
HOURS OF OPERATION, POST DRIVING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE LIMITED TO SUNRISE TO SUNSET MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY.
WHAT'S UP TEAM SOLAR THEY SAID DAYS THAT THEY WOULDN'T START BEFORE 1 O'CLOCK ON SUNDAY RATHER THAN JUST MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY.
>> SUCH NOTICE SUNDAY OPERATION RIGHT NOW BEING.
>> THE CAROLINE COUNTY ORDINANCE DOESN'T PERMIT IT ON SUNDAY AT ALL.
SOUTHAMPTON SOLAR REQUEST INCLUDED WORKING ON SUNDAYS AFTER 1.
>> THAT'S ALMOST TO JUST LEAVE IT MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY.
>> IF THE GOVERNMENT BOARD IT THINKS IT'S NECESSARILY WELL, IT DIDN'T DECIDE IT NEED THE BACK OF ALLOWANCE, BUT WE'LL SAVE MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY.
>> WE HAVE STUFF THAT COMES THROUGH HERE, WE LIMIT THEM SIX DAYS A WEEK.
NUMBER 9, SAYS ALL SOLAR COLLECTION DEVICES SHALL BE LOCATED TO AVOID DIRECT AND GLARE OR REFLECTION ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
THEY DON'T CREATE GLARE BY THEIR NATURE.
BY THAT A SURETY BOND IS REQUIRED FOR LANDSCAPING.
IT COULD BE USED SHOULD GLARE ARISE IF YOU CHOOSE.
DO YOU WANT TO LEAVE THE LANGUAGE OF NUMBER 9 AS IT IS AND JUST KNOW THAT THERE IS A WAY TO FIX IT?
>> NUMBER 10, THE DEVELOPMENT AREA SHOULD NOT INCLUDE ANY AREA NOW IDENTIFIED 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN EXCEPT AS MINIMALLY NECESSARY FOR SERVICE ACCESS ROADS, PROVIDED THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE PERMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY CODE.
IT NEEDS TO SAY ARTICLE 14, THE FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT OF THE SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY CODE THAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND IT MIRRORS THE STATE CODE AND IT'S VERY SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT CAN GO IN A FLOODPLAIN.
>> HAD A GOOD NUMBER 10? OKAY.
>> CAN WE GO AHEAD IN THAT ARTICLE?
>> THE DEVELOPMENT AREA SHOULD NOT INCLUDE ANY LAND THAT'S PART OF A VOLUNTARY AG DISTRICT.
DO YOU WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO DO IT? DO YOU WANT THEM TO BE TWO SEPARATE REQUESTS OR ONE REQUEST? DO YOU WANT TO HAVE TO FINISH WITHDRAWING IT FROM A VOLUNTARY AG DISTRICT BEFORE THEY SUBMIT THEIR REQUEST? THE RISK IS THAT THE PROPERTY COULD BE WITHDRAWN FROM A VOLUNTARY AG DISTRICT AND THIS SOLAR INSTALLATION REQUEST DENIED,
[01:50:06]
THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO REAPPLY TO PUT IT BACK INTO AN AG DISTRICT.>> YOU KNOW WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY.
>> I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER TOOL WE CAN USE. [LAUGHTER]
>> YOU HAVE TO FINISH THAT AG DISTRICT PROCESS BEFORE YOU SUBMIT FOR THE SOLAR INSTALLATION.
>> I'M JUST CURIOUS. WELL, YOU KNOW AT YOUR OFFICE THAT THAT'S THE INTENTION? THAT'S THE REASON, RIGHT? THERE WILL HAVE TO BE A REASON FOR WITHDRAWING.
>> OR WE COULD SAY IF AN APPLICATION COMES TO WITHDRAWAL, CAN WE SAY, WE'D LIKE YOU TO WITHDRAW OR YOU CANNOT PUT THIS INTO SOLAR OR WHATEVER, I DON'T KNOW.
>> BUT THE APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW FROM A VOLUNTARY AG DISTRICT REQUIRES THAT YOU STATE WHY YOU'RE DOING IT.
>> PLUS THERE'S A FEE INVOLVED.
>> WELL, I'M IN FAVOR OF TWO-STEP PROCESS, BUT WHAT [INAUDIBLE]
>> YEAH, I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER TOOL WE CAN USE TO LIMIT.
>> IT'S AN EARLY WARNING SYSTEM AND CITING AGREEMENT BECAUSE CITING AGREEMENTS HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BEFORE THEY CAN SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR THE SOLAR INSTALLATION, SO THE CITING AGREEMENT IS ALL OUT IN THE OPEN BEFORE THEY EVEN SUBMIT AN APPLICATION.
>> [INAUDIBLE] ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT?
>> EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THAT? IN NUMBER 12.
JUST AS I HAVE TO FOLLOW THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE, THERE ISN'T ANY REASON TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THAT.
NUMBER 13 SAYS FROM THE CAROLINE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO MAJOR SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN ONE MILE OF ANOTHER MAJOR SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, AS MEASURED AT THE NEAREST EXTERIOR BOUNDARY OF EACH PROJECT.
AT YOUR DECEMBER MEETING YOU DECIDED TO DO AWAY WITH THAT BECAUSE WHEN THIS 1,000 ACRES THAT'S A SOLAR PROJECT ON IT, THAT EXCLUDES THE RIGHTS OF EVERYBODY WITHIN A MILE FROM EVEN APPLYING.
>> NOW I WAS IN A CONVERSATION WITH BRINGING TINY, APPARENTLY THEY'VE PUT DISTANCES BETWEEN THEIR FACILITIES, AM I CORRECT ON THAT? I JUST KNOW THAT THE MAN I WAS TALKING TO BROUGHT IT UP AND WHAT HIT MY MIND WAS IF WE DON'T PUT SOME TYPE OF DISTANCE BETWEEN IT, WE COULD END UP WITH ALL THE SOLAR FACILITIES ON THAT END OF THE COUNTY BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY GOT A SUBSTATION THERE AND THEY GO, WELL, CHIEF HAS PROVIDED US AND JUST PUT IT ALL IN ONE END.
>> I THINK THE DISCUSSION LAST MONTH WAS WHEN YOU LIMIT IT TO ONE PERCENT OF THE COUNTY AREA.
WHETHER THEY'RE SPREAD OUT OR CLOSE TOGETHER, IT'S STILL ONE PERCENT.
BUT THAT MIGHT NOT BE THE FEELING THIS EVENING.
>> WELL, WE DO THAT WITH RURAL RESIDENTIAL, DON'T WE?
>> DID THEY HAVE TO BE SO MANY PEOPLE?
>> NO, THE FACT THAT WE LIMIT THEY MIGHT OWN EACH BALL CAN GO TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL.
I DON'T KNOW THAT APPLIES ON THAT.
IT JUST HIT MY MIND THAT WE COULD END UP WITH EVERY BIT OF IT ON ONE END OF THE COUNTY.
I NOTICED IT WAS 100 MEGAWATTS.
I LIKE THAT IF THEY'RE PUTTING SOME DISTANCE AT IT.
>> THAT'S THE MAXIMUM, CORRECT? A 100 MEGAWATT SITE IS THE MAXIMUM FOR THAT PROJECT.
THAT ACCOUNT GETS, IF THE PROJECT, IS HOW TO PUT A PARAMETER ON A PROJECT IF YOU DON'T PUT A DISTANCE.
BECAUSE YOU CAN ACTUALLY CONNECT THOSE PROJECTS TOGETHER.
>> IT'S TWO HOURS ACROSS THE STREET FROM EACH OTHER.
THEN ARE YOU MEETING THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU DON'T WANT MORE THAN A 100 MEGAWATTS IN ONE PLACE.
THAT'S JUST ANOTHER PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION.
SOMEBODY, IF A LAND OWNER WANTS TO PARTICIPATE, PUTTING HIM IF HE'S WITHIN THAT ONE MILE.
[01:55:04]
I'M GOING TO SAY THE NEWSOMS PROJECT, ALL OF THIS PROJECT, IT ELIMINATES HIM FOR HE PARTICIPATES IN A PLAN, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ADDRESS THAT.THEY WILL TRY TO BE FAIR ABOUT IT.
>> BECAUSE I THINK WHEN WE FIRST TALKED ABOUT ELIMINATING THE ONE MILE WAS BECAUSE OF THE SMALLER FACILITIES OWNED, THOSE PIECES OF LAND THAT ARE NOT USABLE FOR FARMING OR FORESTRY.
THERE'S SOMEBODY WHO HAD LIKE A 40 ACRE, IT WAS BROWN LAND OR WHATEVER THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT.
THEY WANTED TO PUT SOLAR, BUT IT WAS WITHIN THAT ONE MILE.
THEN THAT'S EATEN UP 40 ACRES OF OUR TOTAL, BUT HE CAN'T DO IT.
>> YOU MIGHT HAVE AREAS WITHIN A MILE OF EACH OTHER THAT ALL HAVE THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL REASONS WHY YOU'D PREFER THERE TO BE USED FOR SOLAR.
>> I CAN SEE IT CREATING CLUSTERS.
IT QUICKLY WOULD EAT UP THE PERCENTAGE OF THAT ONE PERCENT.
BECAUSE PEOPLE THEY WOULD BE LOCATED CLOSER TO EACH OTHER.
>> GROWING UP, THINKING ABOUT WHAT MISS CONNER JUST SAID.
WE'RE PUTTING A LOT OF LIMITATION, LIMITATIONS ON THE DEVELOPER.
BUT THERE AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO LOOK MORE FAVORABLE FOR THE DEVELOPER THAT WANTS TO DO THE SMALLER SITES IN THE BACK FORWARD.
BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE HOUSES.
THAT SEEMED TO BE A BIG ISSUE, THE SCREAMING, THE BUFFERS TYPE OF THING.
IT MIGHT ENCOURAGE MORE OF THOSE SITUATIONS TO GET AWAY FROM THE RESIDENCES OR THE HIGHWAY.
BUT THEN AGAIN, HOW MANY CAN YOU COMMIT TO THAT STATION? I THINK BY HAVING THAT BIG THE STATES NEED TO TAKE IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S LIKE CAPACITY.
IT'S A LOT BACK THEN AND IT MOVES BUT I DON'T THINK THEY CAN ADD ON MORE TO THAT.
>> IT LOOKED LIKE TO ME THEY WERE PLANNING FOR EXPANSION.
>> I THINK I MENTIONED IT BEFORE, I THINK OUR AREA [LAUGHTER], I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S GOING TO PROCEED TO DO ANYMORE.
I THINK WE'VE GOT ENOUGH [LAUGHTER].
>> AS LONG WE'VE GOT LAND BUT THERE IS FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER A MILE.
DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA HOW FAR APART IT IS?
>> I THINK IT'S SEVEN MILES FROM ONE EDGE TO THE OTHER.
>> IS THAT EIGHT MILES OR THAT HIGHWAY, THAT'S A MILE.
>> IF YOU GROUP ALL THE PIECES TOGETHER, IT'S A TRIANGLE, WIDER AT THE TOP AND COMES TO A POINT DOWN [INAUDIBLE].
THE FURTHEST POINT FROM ALL THREE FURTHEST POINTS ARE ABOUT SEVEN MILES.
>> LET'S SAY THAT, THEY COULD TAKE A PROJECT AND GET ONE MILE AWAY FROM THE ONE WE GET AND MAKE THAT PROJECT SEVEN MILES WIDE AT THE FURTHEST POINT.
YOU SEE WHERE WE'RE GETTING AT? BUT THEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO RUN AN EXTRA ONE MILE TO THE SUBSTATION THEY ALREADY GOT.
>> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS THAT WERE RAISED?
>> AS IT STANDS NOW AND DECEMBER YOU SAID GET RID OF THE ONE MILE.
>> THAT WAS OUR MOST RECENT DISCUSSION ABOUT DOING AWAY WITH ONE MILE.
>> THE BENEFIT OF HAVING SMALLER ONES, THEY COULD GROUP IN A, OUT OF THE WAY AREA.
BUT THEN IT PUTS IN DANGER PROPERTY THAT MAYBE IT WAS MORE VISIBLE OR CLOSER TO ROADWAYS AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
>> THEN IF WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE SMALLER FACILITIES VERSUS THE BIGGER FACILITIES, CAN WE FIX IT SO THAT IT HAS A ONE MILE UNLESS IT'S LESS THAN 50 MEGAWATTS OR 40 MEGAWATTS, TO PROTECT THE FACT THAT IT'S THE SMALLER ONES.
YOU GOT TO HAVE ANYTHING OVER 40 MEGAWATTS HAS TO BE A MILE APART FROM THE NEXT PRODUCT.
ANYTHING LESS THAT CAN START DONE IN A MIDNIGHT.
THAT'S JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT ON THE TAPE.
NOT TRYING TO MAKE IT COMPLICATED, BUT I HEAR THE PROS AND CONS AND TRYING TO PROTECT THE 20 MEGAWATTS.
TO FOREIGN IN MIGHT BE WE JUST SAY 20 MEGAWATTS FROM.
>> THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE HAS AS ITS SMALLEST 20 MEGAWATTS.
[02:00:01]
>> DOESN'T DISCUSS THE THREE AND FIVE-MEGAWATT ONES.
20 MEGAWATTS IS GOING TO BE 200 ACRES.
>> THE ONE THAT WAS IN BALKANS WAS 20 MEGAWATTS.
THE ONE THAT GOT THE BRIGHT [INAUDIBLE]
>> IT WAS ONLY FIVE MEGAWATTS.
>> WHAT HAPPENS WITH STUFF THAT'S UNDER 20?
>> THIS BOARD DECIDED LAST MONTH.
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE THE SMALL ONES.
>>OKAY. I [INAUDIBLE] THE MINUTE, BUT OKAY.
THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY WOULD USE IN THE THING THAT THE FIVE-MEGAWATT [INAUDIBLE].
>> BUT THEY DECIDED LAST MONTH THAT YOU DIDN'T WANT THE SMALL ONES BECAUSE IT SAID THAT YOU DRIVE THROUGH PARTS OF NORTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA AND EVERY TIME WE GO AROUND A CURVE, THERE'S ANOTHER ONE.
THEY WANTED TO HAVE JUST THE LARGER ONES COVERED 100 ACRES.
>> WE GET BACK TO NUMBER 12 REAL QUICK.
CAN WE REQUIRE THAT UNDER THE STANDARDS FOR SOLAR PANELS AND BATTERY TECHNOLOGIES THAT WE REQUIRE THESE PANELS BE MAKING UNITED STATES AND BATTERIES TO BE MADE IN THE US? IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN DO?
>> [INAUDIBLE] THAT WILL BE NICE, BUT I THINK [INAUDIBLE].
>> THE VAST MAJORITY OF MARKET YEARS. [LAUGHTER].
>> YOU MENTION, I'M QUITE BEST ON THAT, BATTERIES ARE COMING NEXT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS BUT BATTERIES MAY OR MAY NOT BE LOCATED.
>> THAT WILL BE SOMETHING SPECIAL.
CORRECT MS. [INAUDIBLE] ARE NOT ALLOWING FOR STORAGE BATTERIES AT THIS POINT?
>> TODAY, THE ZONING ORDINANCE DOES NOT PERMIT.
[OVERLAPPING] BATTERY FACILITIES.
>> I GUESS WE JUST WAIT TILL THAT POPS UP?
>> I HAVE A ZOOM MEETING NEXT WEEK WITH SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT SOLAR STORAGE, BUT IT'S NOT PERMITTED TODAY.
>> RIGHT NOW WE DON'T PERMIT BATTERIES. OKAY?
>> NOW YOU HAVE A ZOOM MEETING NEXT WEEK ON THERE.
THAT'S A MODE OF [INAUDIBLE] HOW IS THAT PERMITTED?
>> I MAY NOT TEXT THE DESIGN ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THAT YES.
>> IS THAT POSSIBLE FOR US TO TAG ONTO THE ZOOM MEETING OR THAT'S MORE OF A PRIVATE TIME.
>> IT'S A PRE-APPLICATION, MEANING THERE ISN'T ANY REASON FOR YOU TO. [NOISE].
>> THIS IS FOR RESIDENTIAL USE OR IS IT NOW?
>> NO [OVERLAPPING] TRULY STUNNING BATTERY FACILITIES.
>> MR. [INAUDIBLE] HAS MENTIONED ABOUT IT REQUIRING THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE US-MADE.
YOU ALL HAVE A COMMENT ON THERE?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF WE DO IT NOW, I DON'T KNOW IT.
>> THAT MAY BE A SELLING POINT IN THEIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST THAT THEY WILL.
THEY WILL USE AT LEAST FOR CERTAIN PERCENT OF [OVERLAPPING] MY EQUIPMENT MADE IN THIS COUNTRY.
THAT MAY BE SOMETHING [OVERLAPPING].
THAT WOULD BE PERFECTLY LOGICAL AND MORE FAVORABLE.
THAT'S GOOD I APPRECIATE THAT.
>> WE NEED TO PROMOTE US DEMISES.
>>WHAT KIND OF LANGUAGE, WOULD YOU PUT USE PREFERENCE WOULD BE.
>> YOU CAN'T ARGUE AGAINST THAT BECAUSE IF IT COMES FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY, THEY GOING TO USE MORE OF FOSSIL FUEL TO GET HERE. [LAUGHTER]
>> YOU CAN SAY THAT CONSIDERATIONS [LAUGHTER] CAN BE GIVEN IN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS ENCOURAGING USE OF USA-MADE MATERIALS.
>> [INAUDIBLE] THEY PROMISED AND I'M SURE THEY HAVE RETIRED AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE A JOB FAIR I THINK.
BUT ATTRIBUTED HIM OUT IS THERE WAS PEOPLE FROM THE WESTERN PART OF COUNTRY THAT FOLLOW THAT DEVELOPER.
WE SAW THE LIKES AND PLAGUES WITH A COLOR THAT THEY GROW THEIR CARS.
THEY LIVE FOR MEXICO, UTAH, COLORADO, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA.
I SAW THESE TAGS, BUT I THINK THAT'S STILL THEIR DESCRIPTION AND THEY ARE GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO.
[02:05:03]
VERY EFFICIENT. BUT I THINK THESE GROUPS TRAVEL AROUND THE COUNTRY. I REALLY BELIEVE THAT.>> THAT'S HOW IT IS WITH ANY INDUSTRY WHEN THEIR MALE GETS A [INAUDIBLE] AND ALL, THEY BRING IN PEOPLE WHO DID THIS AS A LIVING.
[OVERLAPPING] DOES AN UPGRADE, THEY BRING IN PEOPLE THAT DO THIS AS A LIVING.
>> I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE MORE EFFICIENT FORM, THEY MADE HIGH SORT OF PROMISES BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HIGH GOOD BE FOR THE LOCAL JOB FOR [INAUDIBLE] I DON'T THINK I AM GOING TO TELL HOW MANY PEOPLE GET HIRED.
COURSE. WE DON'T HAVE LOGIC AND ACCOUNTING.
CITY. MOST, KNOWN SLATER MOMENT REPRESENTING FOLIO FACTS OR SOMEBODY POINTS OF INTERESTS COME TO FALLS BELOW.
THE AND DIDN'T REALLY FACILITATE.
BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S KIND OF KEEP ON GOING.
>> REQUIRED IT EMPHASIS BE PUT ON US-MADE PRODUCTS.
>> YES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS.
>> ALRIGHT. THAT WAS WITH 12 OF THE YEAR.
>> THAT GIVES IT BACK DOWN TO 13 AGAIN, ABOUT ONE MILE OF THE YEAR.
WE BACKED OFF ON THAT NOBODY GOT.
>> EXCITED ABOUT MY 40 MEGAWATT. [NOISE] MECKLENBURG COUNTY JUST TURNED DOWN ONE MONDAY MORNING BECAUSE IT WAS CLOSER THAN THEIR TWO MILES, IT WAS 1.7 MILES, AND THEIR RESTRICTIONS WAS TWO MILES APART.
IT WAS A MASSIVE 500, 600 ACRE, AND THEY JUST TURNED IT DOWN BECAUSE OF THAT.
>> WELL, THERE WAS DISCUSSION LAST MONTH ABOUT DOING AWAY WITH IT.
THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION ABOUT INCREASING IT FROM ONE MILE TO TWO MILES.
>> YES. I THINK I SAID 10 MILES AWAY FROM IT.
[LAUGHTER] BUT YOU ALSO SAID YOU WANT ZERO MORE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I KNOW. I SHOULDN'T DO THAT. [LAUGHTER]
WE GOT ALL THE CANDIDATES GO TWO MILES.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT BRAIN WAS COUNTING THIS.
I WASN'T EVEN PICKING THE GUY HE JUST BROUGHT UP THEY GET PUT ON MILEAGE THING ON AND I WAS LISTENING ON THE PHONE, DIDN'T ASK.
>> [NOISE] I DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER THAT WAS A STANDARD CODE THAT YOU ALL WOULD SAY ANYWHERE FROM 1, 2, 3, AND 4 PERCENT.
WHAT OTHER CANDIDATES GO WITH?
>> SEEMED SOMEBODY HAD DONE UP TO FOUR.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY COME FROM.
>> WELL, I GUESS THERE'S NO CONSENSUS ON THE BACK THE MILEAGE BETWEEN PROJECTS WITHIN THE KINASE IMAGING.
>> MY QUESTION IS IT ANY CONSENSUS ON WHAT OTHER CANDIDATES ARE DOING, EVEN A MILE BETWEEN PROJECTS OR TWO MILES OR FIVE MILES OR SIX MILES.
IS IT SOME TYPE OF THING THAT WE CAN HANG A HAT ON JUST LIKE WE DID THE 1, 2, 3 AND 4 PERCENT?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO HANG OUR HAT ON EVERYTHING EVERYBODY ELSE DOES.
LET'S DO OUR OWN, SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT I THINK JACK BROUGHT UP THE POINT ABOUT, LET'S NOT OPEN UP THE LEGAL DOOR.
>> IF IT OPENS UP A LEGAL THING, THEN WE CAN CHANGE IT.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BE AFRAID.
I MEAN, UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING REALLY STUPID BY LEGAL SITUATION.
AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT REALLY ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ABOUT WHAT WE PUT DOWN THERE, IF IT'S REASONABLE WE BACK IT UP.
WITH THIS, IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO GET AROUND.
>> THE NEXT PAGE AFTER NUMBER 15 SAYS, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MAY HAVE MADE THE PROVISIONS OF THESE SECTIONS PROVIDED THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE AMENDMENT PROVISIONS PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND GENERAL WELFARE.
ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE DISCUSSION ITEMS.
[02:10:05]
BUT I SAID I WON'T WATCH THIS PROJECT GET APPROVED AND WATCH THE BOARD NEVER ASK ANY QUESTION.
IF WE DON'T PUT IT IN ORDER, THE NEXT BOARD, 10 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD MAY JUST SIT HERE AND SAY NOTHING.
>> OKAY. DO YOU ALL WANT TO PICK A NUMBER? DO YOU WANT IT TO BE A MILE? DO YOU WANT IT TO BE MORE?
>> SERIOUS THAN A HALF FALL FROM ONE ENTITY TO THE OTHER.
>> WELL, I GUESS I'M JUST SAYING I WAS LOOKING AT TWO OR THREE MILES AND I WAS LOOKING FURTHER.
>> WE CAN PUT IN FOR LONG IF YOU WANTED TO.
>> THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN HOW LONG IT TAKES TO DRIVE FROM ONE END OF THE COUNTY AND HOW MANY MILES IT IS.
>> I'M SAYING A HALF MILE. I'M THINKING HALF MILE BUT I'D SAY LET'S PUT TWO OR THREE MILES AND IN THE NEXT MEETING I'LL KNOW HOW MANY HALF MILES IT IS FROM ONE END OF THE COUNTY TO THE OTHER PARAMETER, WHATEVER.
[INAUDIBLE] BUT WHEN WE SAY MILES, WE'RE DOING THEM ANYWAY, CORRECT?
>> I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T DELETE IT.
>> WHAT NUMBER DO YOU WANT [INAUDIBLE]?
IF THAT'S TOO MUCH, WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE.
>> IT'S GOING TO BE CLOSE TO A SUBSTATION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
IT'S GOING TO BE RELATIVELY CLOSE.
>> WELL, IT'S SMALLER, THEY CAN GO ON A SMALLER LINE, BUT THE BIG ONES GO AHEAD BEYOND OUR MAIN TRANSMISSION LINE.
>> DON'T WE HAVE 10 SUBSTATIONS IN SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY? I BELIEVE IT'S TEN.
>> THAT'S A QUESTION THAT'S HARD TO GET OUT OF.
THEY GOT 100 MEGAWATTS SYSTEM OUT THERE.
THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE PUT IN LAST TIME, RIGHT?
>> WELL, THEY'VE BUILT THE SUBSTATION.
>> SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY IS SERVED BY SIX FACILITIES, SO YOU WANT TO SAY THREE MILES?
>> WE NEED TO REVIEW THAT NEXT WEEK, LET'S GO AHEAD.
I'M GETTING A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE ON THAT.
>> OUR FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT SHALL GET EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAINING PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF COMMERCIAL OPERATION, AND NOW WE'RE 15 AS A COMMUNITY MEETING, DO YOU WANT TO KEEP THE REQUIREMENT FOR OUR COMMUNITY MEETING AND DO YOU WANT TO SAY THAT IT CAN TAKE PLACE NO MORE THAN SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO THE MIDDLE OF THE APPLICATION? NOW THERE'S NO TIME PERIOD, SO THEY COULD HAVE A MEETING AND THEY MIGHT NOT SUBMIT THEIR APPLICATION FOR 2,3,4,5 YEARS AND PROPERTY'S CHANGED HANDS.
>> MS. LEWIS, HOW WAS THAT MEETING ANNOUNCED? DO YOU WANT THE PROPERTY OWNERS GET A NOTICE?
>> EVERYBODY THAT OWNS PROPERTY WITHIN ONE MILE.
>> THE SMALL ONE ON FLAGGING RUN ROAD, THAT WAS ONLY 40 ACRES, THERE WERE 300 PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN ONE MILE AND THEY ALL HAD TO GET A NOTICE IN THE MAIL.
IT OUTLINES EXACTLY WHAT HAS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY.
>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THEY GOT TO PRESENT AN APPLICATION WITHIN SIX MONTHS? [OVERLAPPING]
>> THIS IS THE INFORMATION MADE OUT THERE? [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S NOT NECESSARILY CONSTRUCTION, BUT ONCE THEY GET A POSITIVE RESPONSE FROM THEIR SUPERVISORS OR THE GOVERNMENT BODY, HOW LONG DO THEY HAVE BEFORE THEY HAVE TO START?
>> CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN TODAY'S ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT YOU DO SOMETHING WITHIN 12 MONTHS.
>> THAT COULD BE SURVEYING, THAT COULD BE SOIL BORINGS, BUT YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING WITHIN 12 MONTHS TO KEEP ANY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALIVE.
>> I AGREE BECAUSE IF THEY START DOING SURVEYING, THE PEOPLE IN THERE, WOULD KNOW THAT BECAUSE THEY GO ALL THE WAY IN EVERYBODY'S PROPERTY LIKE THEY WON'T CARE.
[02:15:04]
>> BY THE TIME THEY GET TO THAT POINT, THEY'VE ALREADY HAD BOTH THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARINGS.
>> THE MIDDLE OF THAT PAGE SAYS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MAY AMEND THE PROVISIONS AND THAT QUESTION IS, THIS IS GENERALLY PART OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CAN'T REDUCE THE REQUIREMENTS FOUND IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BUT THERE IS SOME GIVE-AND-TAKE.
THAT WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
FOR SOME DISCUSSION THAT TAKE PLACE BASED ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF AND WHAT'S AROUND IT.
I THINK THIS BOARD HAS DECIDED THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO BE SO PRESCRIPTIVE THAT YOUR ORDINANCE IS 120 PAGES LONG AND THERE'S NO ROOM FOR ANY DISCUSSION.
BECAUSE YOU MIGHT BE PRESENTED WITH A WONDERFUL PROJECT BUT IF IT DOESN'T MEET THE 120 PAGE ORDINANCE, YOU CAN'T SAY YES, AND YOU MIGHT BE PRESENTED WITH A TERRIBLE PROJECT THAT DOES MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND THEN YOU CAN'T SAY NO.
YOU WANT SOME DISCUSSION ROOM.
>> OR THE DECOMMISSIONING WHICH IS THE NUT THAT NOBODY SEEMS TO BE ABLE TO CRACK.
[NOISE] FROM THE CAROLINE COUNTY ORDINANCE SAYS 1A THROUGH E.
AGRICULTURAL READY CONDITION MEANS THE PROPERTY IS READY FOR AGRICULTURE OR SILVICULTURE USE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT GROWING CYCLE AND ANY CHANGES TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY SHALL REQUIRE AN UPDATED PLAN AND SURETY REFLECTING THE SAME.
MY QUESTION IS, HOW DO YOU WANT TO ENSURE THE COUNTY'S APPRISED OF A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP? DO YOU WANT AN ANNUAL REPORT?
>> NOW, THIS IS THE OWNERSHIP OF THE.
>> LEASE THE PROJECT, CORRECT.
>> WHY CAN'T YOU DO IT LIKE AN ADDITIONAL INSURANCE EVERY TIME OR SOMETHING.
IF YOUR INSURANCE COLLAPSES, YOU'RE NOTIFIED.
YOU DO IT, SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT. [NOISE]
>> THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR MR. RILEY BUT THAT'S CERTAINLY A CONSIDERATION.
>> BUT THIS IS UNDER JUST DECOMMISSIONING.
>> THIS IS UNDER DECOMMISSIONING.
>> THAT WOULD BE THE EASIEST WAY, I THINK. [NOISE]
>> YEAH, IT WOULD BE LIKE AN ADDITIONAL INSURANCE.
>> THINK OF IT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PRODUCE A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE EVERY YEAR TO THE COUNTY.
>> IF THEY EVER DROPPED THEIR INSURANCE, THE COUNTY WOULD BE.
>> INSURANCE FOR DECOMMISSIONING?
>> THAT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THAT.
I'M NOT SAYING IT WOULD BE INSURANCE BUT IT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO INSURANCE.
YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A BOND, ARE YOU?
>> BOND AND INSURANCE. [NOISE]
>> BUT IF THE FACILITY IS SOLD PRIOR TO DECOMMISSION, IT GETS UP RUNNING IN FIVE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, SAME TO MANUAL GET OUT OF THIS ONE AND THEN SELL IT TO ANOTHER ELECTRIC COMPANY.
>> WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY GUIDELINES DOING THAT.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY ANNUAL INSPECTIONS AT ALL WITH THE FACILITY WE HAVE NOW?
>> WE DON'T HAVE ANY ANNUAL INSPECTIONS NOW.
>> IS THIS ORDINANCE HAVING ANYTHING BUILT INTO AS AN ANNUAL INSPECTION?
>> A PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF THE SITE?
>> ALLOW ME TO ASK SOMETHING PRECARIOUS.
I DON'T MEAN TO BE FUNNY, PLEASE DON'T THINK THE WRONG WAY BUT DO WE ACTUALLY KNOW IT'S AN OPERATION? DO WE REALLY KNOW IT'S AN OPERATION?
>> ARE YOU ASKING IF I KNOW? I DO NOT KNOW.
>> IS THE COUNTY KNOW? NOT YOU.
>> I DO NOT KNOW WHO IN THE COUNTY WOULD KNOW.
>> YOU CAN'T LOOK AT IT AND TELL.
>> I DON'T KNOW EITHER. I DON'T KNOW.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS BUT I DON'T KNOW.
THE REASON I ASKED THAT IS BECAUSE WE SAY IF IT'S NOT IN OPERATION FOR 12 MONTH PERIOD AND THEY CAN'T GIVE A REASON FOR UPDATE BY GETTING IT BACK ONLINE, THEY HAD STARTED DECOMMISSIONING PROCESS BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW? IF THEY KEEP CUTTING THE GRASS, MAINTAINING A NURSE'S STOP,
[02:20:02]
HOW DO WE KNOW IT'S ACTUALLY PRODUCING ENERGY?>> DO THE LANDOWNERS GET PAID WHETHER IT'S RUNNING OR NOT? [NOISE] BECAUSE IF THEY'RE NOT RUNNING, THE LANDOWNER DOESN'T GET PAID THEN SOMEBODY WOULD BE RAISING CANE RIGHT NOW.
I CAN'T ANSWER THAT EITHER. BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.
BUT IS SO MUCH MONEY IN THIS THEY GET PAID FIVE YEARS BEFORE THEY EVEN START A PROJECT, IT'S [NOISE] CRAZY.
>> ONCE IT'S CONSTRUCTED, IT'S A PASSIVE USE.
THE PANELS GO BACK AND FORTH AND SOMEBODY MOWS THE GRASS BUT DO YOU CARE IF IT'S OPERATIONAL?
>> IF IT'S NOT OPERATIONAL, IT NEEDS TO BE DECOMMISSIONED [LAUGHTER] SO YES, WE DO CARE.
>> BUT IF THE GRASS CONTINUES TO BE CUT AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT DOES WHEN IT'S OPERATIONAL FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES.
>> THEY CAN'T BUILD ANOTHER ONE BECAUSE IT TAKES UP 14. [LAUGHTER]
>> IT'S UNDER ONE PERCENT SO THEY CAN'T BUILD ANOTHER ONE.
>> IF IT'S STILL MAINTAINED AND THE GRASS IS CUT AND THE TREES ARE TAKEN CARE OF AND EVERYTHING LOOKS NICE AND SHINY WHO CARES IF IT'S RUNNING? IF IT'S ABANDONED, IF YOU CAN LOOK AT IT AND SEE THAT IT'S ABANDONED THAT'S SOMETHING.
BUT IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT ALWAYS DOES, [NOISE] I DON'T KNOW WHO IN THE COUNTY WOULD KNOW IF IT'S CREATING ELECTRICITY AND I DON'T KNOW WHY IT MATTERS IF IT'S MAINTAINED.
>> WELL, I GUESS YOU'RE RIGHT. UNLESS YOU HAD A MEGAWATT CAP.
YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT'S PRODUCING AND IS IT 100 MEGAWATTS OR IS IT 80 OR IS IT 120.
THEY SAY IT'S A 100, WHO KNOW.
>> I BELIEVE THAT MR. FOSTER WHEN HE WAS HERE, THE ATTORNEY WAS HERE, SAYS THAT THERE IS A REPORT TO THE STATE EVERY YEAR AS TO HOW MUCH ELECTRICITY IT'S CREATING.
>> MR. TENNESSEE, YOU CAN SEE IT CONNECTS MANY ASPECTS.
HE WOULD KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT IF EVERYBODY UP HERE KNEW OR NOT?
>> WE CAN DEBATE THAT ALL NIGHT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I'M ASSUMING WE ARE ALL PAYING FOR SOLAR IN ONE WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.
>> I LIKE TO DEAL WITH ENERGY. [NOISE]
>> IT AFFECTS ME IF MY ENERGY COSTS ARE GOING UP AND THEY'RE NOT [NOISE] USING IT.
>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF EVEN AT ITS MOST, IF IT'S ONLY GOING TO PROVIDE SIX PERCENT OF THE ELECTRICITY.
I DON'T KNOW IF MAKING IT OR NOT MAKING IT MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE TO YOUR BILL.
>> WHICH COSTED THEM MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, SOLAR FACILITIES.
>> YOU'RE PAYING THAT TOO WHETHER IT'S CREATING ELECTRICITY OR NOT.
GOT TO MEET THAT FOOTPRINT BY 2030.
>> LET'S CONTINUE ON THE DECOMMISSIONER.
>> DEACON FROM CAROLINE COUNTY SAYS DECOMMISSIONING SHALL BE REQUIRED FOLLOWING A CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS OF CESSATION OF USE OR REVOCATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
THE OWNER SHALL HAVE NOT MORE THAN 24 MONTHS TO COMPLETE DECOMMISSIONING OF THE SOLAR ENERGY FACILITY.
DO YOU WANT TO GIVE THEM 24 MONTHS TO CLEAN IT OFF IT? IT ONLY TAKES A YEAR TO INSTALL IT, 24 MONTHS SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME. [NOISE]
>> IS THAT SOMETHING WE PUT INTO FIRST ORDINANCE, THE 24 MONTHS?
>> NO, THAT'S FROM THE CAROLINE COUNTY ORDINANCE.
>> WILL ONE YEAR BE ENOUGH? ONE YEAR, 12 MONTHS?
A YEAR PROBABLY COULD DO IT GOES UP QUICK.
WHEN THEY START, ONCE THEY GET IN LAND LEVEL LIKE THEY WANTED OR WHATEVER THEY'RE GOING TO DO, THE PANELS GO QUICK.
>> THEY HAVE NO INCENTIVE TO DRAG IT OUT.
>> WELL, IT SHOULDN'T. ONE OF THAT CREW COMES IN THAT'S GOING TO DO THAT, IS COMPOUND TO BE VERY QUICK ANYWAY.
>> NUMBER 3 SAYS DECOMMISSIONING SHALL INCLUDE REMOVAL OF ALL PANELS, FOOTERS, FOUNDATION STRUCTURES, CABLING, ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS, AND ANY OTHER ASSOCIATED FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT AS DESCRIBED IN THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN.
THAT IS BASICALLY WHAT YOURS SAYS NOW.
NUMBER 4 SAYS ALL FENCES, ACCESS ROADS, AND NON-UTILITY IMPROVEMENT SHALL BE REMOVED IN LESS THAN EXECUTED AGREEMENT IS PROVIDED INDICATING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER AGREES FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS TO REMAIN.
>> TODAY SOME COMMUNITIES SAY YOU ONLY HAVE TO REMOVE DOWN THE THREE FEET BELOW THE SURFACE BUT YOUR ORDINANCE SAYS EVERYTHING.
[02:25:01]
>> BECAUSE WHAT'S THREE FEET [NOISE] BELOW THE SURFACE, 30 YEARS FROM NOW MIGHT BE FIVE OR SIX FEET BELOW THE SURFACE [LAUGHTER] OR IT MAY BE LESS DEPENDING ON HOW THE SOIL MOVES, SO TODAY YOUR ORDINANCE SAYS EVERYTHING.
UNLESS THE OWNER WANTS IT TO REMAIN. [OVERLAPPING]
>> UNLESS THE OWNER WANTS IT TO REMAIN, UNLESS THEY WANT THE GRAVEL ROADS TO STAY OR WHATEVER.
THAT'S THE OWNER WANTS TO REMAIN.
>> UNLESS THE LANDOWNER WANTS TO KEEP.
>> CAN THE LANDOWNER SAY I WANT THE WIRING TO REMAIN?
>> NO, BECAUSE NUMBER 3 REQUIRES THAT THEY TAKE OUT ALL THAT.
NUMBER 4 SAYS FENCES, ACCESS ROADS, AND NON-UTILITY IMPROVEMENT.
>> IT'S JUST NEED FENCING AND GRAVEL ROAD SPECIFICALLY.
>> DOES IT HAVE TO BE LEFT IN A GRADED CONDITION OR NOT.
>> BUT IF YOU BE PUT THAT LIKE IT WAS.
>> THAT WOULD BE IN THERE AS WELL.
>> THAT IS IN THE PAGE BEFORE THE ONE THAT TALKS ABOUT DECOMMISSIONING.
IT NEEDS TO BE LEFT IN AGRICULTURAL READY CONDITION.
>> MS. LOUIS, [OVERLAPPING] UNLESS THE LAND OWNER WANTS TO REMAIN, THE LANDSCAPE THAT HAS BEEN ADDED IS THAT OPTION FOR THE LANDOWNER AS WELL?
>>YES BECAUSE THAT'S A NON-UTILITY IMPROVEMENT.
>> BUT IF THE LANDOWNER WANTS TO STAY, IT'S FINE.
>> OKAY. [BACKGROUND] ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT AS PRESUMED.
>> OKAY. NUMBER 5 TALKS ABOUT THE SALVAGE VALUE.
THIS SAYS THE CAROLINE COUNTY ORDINANCE SAYS YOU GET TO A 100 PERCENT OF THE SALVAGE VALUE, AND THEREFORE IT HAS DISCUSSED FOR YEARS THAT YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE NO PERCENT FOR THE SALVAGE VALUE AND DO YOU CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT, AND DO YOU WANT $1,000 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE EACH FIVE YEARS THAT THE DECOMMISSIONING VALUE IS REASSESSED? THAT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ME.
>> I DON'T WANT A PERSON TO DO THAT.
>> NO, THAT IS JUST ON OUR END FOR US TO TAKE [OVERLAPPING].
>> ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES WITH THAT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] YOU'VE GOT A COMMENT?
>> THE CURRENT ORDINANCE'S SALVAGE VALUE IS ZERO [INAUDIBLE].
>> NO, THE CURRENT ORDINANCES SALVAGE VALUE IS 50 PERCENT.
MY THOUGHT WOULD BE LEAVE IT AT 50 PERCENT OR ZERO.
>> I THINK SOME ON THIS BOARD HAVE HAD CONCERNS FOR YEARS THAT WHO CAN TELL WHAT THE SALVAGE VALUE IS GOING TO BE, AND IF THERE IS SALVAGE VALUE, THEN IF THEY GET ZERO CREDIT FOR SALVAGE VALUE, THEN EITHER THE PRIVATE COMPANY THAT DOES THE DECOMMISSIONING EITHER [OVERLAPPING] THEY'LL DO WELL BECAUSE THEY'RE SALVAGE VALUE OR THEY WON'T DO WELL BECAUSE THERE'S NO SALVAGE VALUE.
BUT THAT DOESN'T BURDEN YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN WITH THAT AMOUNT.
I THINK THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN TO LESSEN THAT POTENTIAL BURDEN ON FUTURE TAXPAYERS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, SAYING A ZERO PERCENT SALVAGE VALUE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] ZERO PERCENT [INAUDIBLE].
WHAT DO YOU THINK? I'M JUST THINKING IN MY HEAD. [LAUGHTER].
>> WELL, PERHAPS THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED. [LAUGHTER].
>> OKAY. NUMBER 6 ON THE LAST PAGE TALKS ABOUT A REVIEW EVERY FIVE YEARS.
DO YOU THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT REVIEW PERIOD? THAT SEEMS TO BE PRETTY COMMON IN OTHER ONES.
>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IN THE COUNTY THAT HAS TO BE REVIEWED SOONER THAN FIVE YEARS? THREE YEARS TAKES [INAUDIBLE] IN MY MIND.
IT'S AN INDUSTRY RIGHT NOW THAT TECHNOLOGY JUST CHANGES.
COMPUTERS CHANGE QUICKER THAN FIVE YEARS, PAUL.
[02:30:02]
>> HARRISON, ANYTHING ELSE IN THE COUNTY, THERE ARE DEPARTMENT REVIEWS ON ANY SCHEDULE.
>> YOU WANT TO TAKE FIVE YEARS, YOU WANT TO TAKE A DIFFERENT NUMBER?
>> FIVE YEARS IS [OVERLAPPING]
>> WOULD THERE BE A TIMELY PROCESS? WOULD THAT BE YOUR DEPARTMENT?
>> HOW CAN WE HAVE TO REVALUE THE PROPERTY VALUES [INAUDIBLE] IS IT ONCE EVERY SEVEN OR FIVE?
>> WAS THE STATE REQUIRES TO REASSESS PROFIT [INAUDIBLE].
>> I THOUGH IT WAS SIX. [BACKGROUND]
>> THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'M OFF TO DO A REASSESSMENT.
>> DO WE RE-EVALUATE PROFIT VALUES EVERY FIVE YEARS?
>> THE STATE REQUIRES, SO YEAH.
>> WE COULD DO IT EVERY YEAR IF YOU WANT TO.
BUT CLOSE TO ABOUT $300,000, $400,000 TO DO IT, SO YOU [INAUDIBLE] DOING IT.
>> BUT THE STATE REQUIRES YOU TO DO IT AT LEAST ONCE EVERY 5, 6, 7 [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE.
>> LET'S LEAVE IT AT FIVE YEARS. [OVERLAPPING]
NUMBER 7 TALKS ABOUT THE SITE AGREEMENT AND THE SITE PLAN AND THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN BEING RECORDED AT THE CLERK OR THE COURTS OFFICE.
NOW, THE SURVEY OUTLINING THE AREA OF THE PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED AT THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
BUT THE SITE PLAN AND THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED.
>> I THINK IT SHOULD BE RECORDED.
>> I THINK IT SHOULD BE RECORDED TOO.
>> IN CASE YOU'LL DON'T KNOW THAT THE CLERK OF THE COURTS OFFICE HAS MOVED OVER TO A 100 DALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND THEY WILL OPEN TO THE PUBLIC NEXT TUESDAY.
SO JUST A LOW [BACKGROUND] DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS EXCEPT THE RECORDING PART.
IF YOU NEED ANYTHING RECORDED, THEY WILL OPEN AGAIN TO THE PUBLIC NEXT TUESDAY.
THE LAST ONE SAYS PROPERTY OWNERS ACKNOWLEDGE THE COUNTY'S ABILITY TO ENTER THE PROPERTY TO EFFECTUATE DECOMMISSIONING PURSUANT TO VIRGINIA CODE.
THEIR UNIFORM STATE-WIDE BUILDING CODE PERMITS INSPECTORS TO ENTER ANY SITE WITH AN ACTIVE BUILDING PERMIT AND DECOMMISSIONING PLAN WOULD REQUIRE DEMOLITION PERMIT.
THEY CAN DO THIS ANYHOW, BUT THERE REALLY ISN'T ANYTHING WRONG WITH SAYING IT AGAIN.
>> IS THERE ANYTHING THAT ALIGNS TO COUNTY TO ENTER THE PROPERTY?
>> [INAUDIBLE], DO YOU MEAN A PROJECT THAT'S DONE?
>> A WARRANT. YOU COULD GET A JUDGE TO ISSUE A WARRANT UNLESS THERE IS A LIFE SAFETY ISSUE, THEN AN INSPECTOR CAN ENTER THE PROPERTY.
BUT JUST DRIVING BY AND WANT TO GO IN THERE FOR NO COMPLAINT, NO ACTIVE LIFE SAFETY ISSUE, NO ACTIVE BUILDING PERMIT, THEY WOULD NEED TO BE INVITED INTO THE PROPERTY OR GET A WARRANT.
>> WELL, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO COME IN, ALL THEY GOT TO DO IS [INAUDIBLE], BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE A WARRANT TO COME IN.
[INAUDIBLE] TO COME ON MY HOME, THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A WARRANT.
>> THEY CAN'T COME IN YOUR HOUSE THOUGH.
>> OKAY. THEY CAN'T COME IN MY HOUSE, BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A HIGH ZONE ASSAULT ABROAD.
>> RIGHT. THERE ARE THINGS THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTORS CAN DO, BUT WITHOUT ANY ACTIVE BUILDING PERMIT OR ANY ACTIVE LIFE SAFETY ISSUE TO GO INSIDE, YOUR HOUSE OR A FACTORY OR ANYTHING ELSE, THEY HAVE TO BE INVITED IN OR GET A WARRANT.
>> OKAY. WELL, I GET BACK TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OR DMMA, THEY'VE CHANGED IT.
[02:35:04]
THEY CAN COME IN ON A FACILITY WITHOUT A WARRANT.>> I EXPECT THEY CAN GO INTO THESE FACILITIES WITHOUT A WARRANT.
WITH DEQ IF THERE IS A POLLUTION ISSUE, SOMEBODY IS SPILLING OIL OR THERE'S STYROFOAM IN THE RIVER [LAUGHTER] AS THERE WAS A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, WE GET A CALL FROM DEQ ASKING IF WE WOULD BE THEIR LEGS AND GO IN AND INVESTIGATE ON THEIR BEHALF.
>> WELL, I GUESS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, I UNDERSTAND IS THAT ANY AGENCY IN THE STATE, THEY CAN ACTUALLY GO IN AND WE SAY THAT POSSIBLY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY COULD, BUT IN MY CONVERSATION THIS WEEK, THEY'VE CHANGED NAMES BUT THEY HAVE NO REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER [INAUDIBLE].
I KEEP ASKING THAT QUESTION ON THE [INAUDIBLE] BASIS AND THE ANSWER IS NO AND THAT'S COMING FROM A STATE LEVEL.
>> UNLESS THERE WAS A FIRE OR SOME SPARKS OR SOMETHING.
IF I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT IF A BUILDING INSPECTOR WALKED IN TO THE FACILITY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE OR SHE WOULD LOOK AT.
UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING BAD GOING ON THAT THEY CAN SEE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WOULD WANT A BUILDING INSPECTOR TO LOOK AT.
>> WHERE DID YOU GET BACK TO EVENTUALLY BAD OR IS IT GOING ON THESE FACILITIES? I CAN SEE THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME TYPE OF ABILITY OR A WAY THAT A COUNTY CAN GO IN IF THEY SEE THE NEED, NOT THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE A COMPLAINT.
IT'S TECHNOLOGY CHANGES. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO WORD IT, BUT I'D LIKE TO LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN WHERE WE COULD AT LEAST HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF TWO OR THREE ANNUAL INSPECTIONS A YEAR.
>> THAT MAY BE A QUESTION THAT NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED THROUGH THE UNIFORM STATE-WIDE BUILDING CODE.
IF YOU PUT IT INTO CODE TO SAY THE [NOISE] AS A CONDITION THAT INSPECTION OF THE FACILITIES NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
>> FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE INSPECTOR WOULD BE LOOKING FOR.
WOULD BE LOOKING FOR DAMAGE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT WOULD BE FOR WHATEVER REASON.
IT MAY BE ZEBRA REASON YOU DON'T NEED TO VISIT.
BUT IF YOU ADDED IN THE ORDINANCE AND SAY WE CAN VISIT, ONE OF THE HOT TOPICS TODAY IS FIREARMS, IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
THERE'S PROBLEMS WITH FIREARMS. WELL, MAYBE THERE IS A PROBLEM, MAYBE THERE ISN'T.
IF THERE IS NOT AN INSPECTION OF IT, HOW DO YOU KNOW? THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TELL YOU ABOUT IT.
>> BUT THE AGENCY THAT OVERSEES THE TREATMENT OF FIREARMS CAN PROBABLY GO IN THERE.
THEY ARE CERTIFIED AND TRAINED.
[OVERLAPPING] THEIR MACHINERY INSIDE THE FACILITY MIGHT NOT BE WORKING AT ALL, OR MIGHT BE WORKING COMPLETELY BACKWARDS.
BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE IN A BUILDING INSPECTOR IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO TELL THAT BY LOOKING AT IT.
>> WELL, AND IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, BUT AT LEAST WHAT WE'RE DOING IS LOOKING.
I THINK WHAT MIKE IS ASKING FOR IS A KEY TO GET INTO THE FACILITY AND IT MAY BE TWO PEOPLE.
IT MAY BE A BUILDING INSPECTOR OFFICIAL FROM OUR DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER CONSULTANT.
BUT AT LEAST IF WE'D HAVE SOMETHING IN OUR ORDINANCE TO SAY WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO IN.
>> PERHAPS THE ORDINATES NEEDS TO SAY WE HAVE THE RIGHT BUT TO REQUIRE AN ANNUAL INSPECTION WHEN NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT WHEN THEY GO IN THERE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO AT LEAST THREE TIMES IN TO FACILITATE AND KEEP IT BROAD SPECTRUM.
THEY COME UNANNOUNCED, THEY DON'T COME WITH A WARRANT AND I'M VERY POLITE WHEN THEY GET THERE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO TAKE THEM OFF.
[02:40:03]
THE COUNTY SHOULD RESERVE THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO ENTER THE FACILITY BEING THAT THIS IS AN ELECTRICAL FACILITY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE [OVERLAPPING] ACCOMPANIED BY PERSONNEL BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T LET US IN THE FACILITY UP THERE [OVERLAPPING]>> I'M NOT SAYING WE JUST HAVE A KEY TO THE GATE AND WE'D GO IN ANY TIME.
WHEREAS I DO GET VISITS WHETHER THE GATE LOCKED THEN CLIMB OVER THE GATE AND GO IN ANYTIME AND I CAN'T STOP.
I'M JUST SAYING WE'RE BUILDING OUR ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO IN A MINIMUM OF THREE TIMES DURING THE YEAR, BECAUSE IF WE SEE A PROBLEM THAT WE CAN'T FORESEE NOW IN THE ORDINANCE, THEN WE KNOW WHO YOUR CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY TO FORCE FURTHER INSPECTION INTO IT.
BUT IT IS A FACILITY THAT'S IN OUR COUNTY.
THE STATE'S NOT GOING TO LOOK AFTER OUR COUNTY AS MUCH AS OUR COUNTRY.
I JUST LIKE BUILDING SOMEHOW KNOWING THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO GRANT US AT LEAST THREE TIMES A YEAR.
HOW WE WORD THAT WOULD BE UP TO RICHARD [INAUDIBLE].
>> PERHAPS INCLUDING THAT WE CAN RATHER THAN WE HAVE TO.
WE CAN BECAUSE WE MAY PICK UP SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE THAT WE HAVE NOT SEEN TODAY AND IT'S LIKE, OKAY, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT AT LEAST THREE TIMES.
THEY REQUIRED TO COME TO THE COUNTY.
THE STATE MAKES THEM COME AT LEAST THREE TIMES A YEAR.
>> THEY PROBABLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT AND LOOKING FOR WHEN THEY GO IN.
>> THEY DO AND AS TIME GOES ON, WE'RE GOING TO LEARN THAT TOO.
WE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO LEARN ABOUT THE FACILITY, BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE THINGS THAT POP UP EVENTUALLY THAT WE'RE GOING TO SAY I WISH WE COULD GO IN AND LOOK AND WE DIDN'T BUILD IT INTO OUR ORDINANCE, WAS WE CAN'T GET HIGH-TECH AND TAKE A DRONE TO FLY OVER.
>> THEY'VE MADE STRICTER RULES ABOUT DRONES IN THIS MOST RECENT SESSION.
>> WELL, I'M SURE THEY PROBABLY GOT RESTRICTIONS ALL WITHHOLD AN ELECTRICAL FACILITY.
BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT I'D LIKE TO AT LEAST [OVERLAPPING].
>> RESERVE THE RIGHT. THERE YOU GO.
>> YEAH. YOU MAY NOT HAVE ANY REASON.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. BUT SOMETHING POPS UP THAT WOULD GET YOU TO TAKE IT TO THE DOOR WOULD CUT THEIR PERSONAL.
[OVERLAPPING] I THINK RESERVE THE RIGHTS GOOD.
>> I COULD SEE YOU IF WHERE YOU LIVE AND YOU'RE DRIVING PAST AND YOU SEE BROKEN PANELS.
BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN BROKEN PANELS GO DOWN THE INTERSTATE AND THINGS ARE JUST TURNED EVERY WHICH WAY.
MAYBE THE PEOPLE WHO OPERATE THE FACILITY, DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT.
IF YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO INTO PROPERTY, YOU CAN EXAMINE WHERE THINGS ARE NOT QUITE WHAT THEY SHOULD BE.
>> IT JUST CONCERNS ME THAT VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY STILL HAS NO REGULATORY AUTHORITY AND THAT'S WHERE THE AUTHORITY SHOULD BE ON THE STATE LEVEL RATHER THAN A LOCAL LAB.
BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TRAINED, WE DON'T WANT HAVE TRAINED PROFESSIONALS INDICATING TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
I'M NOT TRYING TO ADD A JOB DESCRIPTION BY ANY MEANS TO ANTIBODY IN THE COUNTY BUT OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND.
SOMETIMES JUST BEING ABLE TO WALK THROUGH.
THE THING IS WE'VE GOT TO FACILITATE ALREADY AT 1,400 ACRES.
IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS IN THE COUNTY WITH 1,400 ACRES BIG THAT NOBODY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO WALK IN ON? THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO WALK IN ON THEM [INAUDIBLE] PROBLEM, THEY CAN COME IN.
>> I THINK THE WAY THAT YOU CAN PIGGYBACK WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTOR IS HAVE A STATE FIRE MARSHAL BECAUSE THEY CAN GO INTO A BUSINESS AND DO RANDOM INSPECTION ANYTIME THEY WANT TO DO FOR SIGNAGE, FIRE EXTINGUISHERS, ALL THAT STUFF.
YOU CAN MAYBE COORDINATE THAT WITH THAT BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR AN INSPECTION.
>> BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRED INSPECTION. JUST RESERVE THE RIGHT.
>> RESERVE THE RIGHT. YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT.
>> I THINK THIS IS LAND RESERVE THE RIGHT TO GO INTO IT.
>> THAT'S AGREEABLE. ANYTHING ELSE? DO YOU MIND BRINGING UP THE ISSUES OR CHANGES ON THIS PART? [INAUDIBLE]
[02:45:04]
>> YOU WANT THE CHANGES THAT YOU MADE TO THE FIRST SECTION, AGAIN.
>> JUST AN UPDATE AND I THINK WE'RE PRETTY GOOD ON MAJORITY OF IT.
NOW, I STILL MAKE IT WHEN YOU GET PACKET NEXT SMALL, MAKE YOUR NOTES, SO IT WILL BE AHEAD OF THE GAME.
CAN YOU SEE ANYTHING THAT YOU DON'T LIKE OR WASN'T WORDED QUITE RIGHT.
I KNOW WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION POINTS.
THEN NEXT MONTH WILL BE THE LAST SECTION. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YOU'RE GOING TO FORWARD THAT TO US AND THE AGENDA PACK.
>> YOU'LL GET THE WORKSHEET NEXT WEEK. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'LL BE GOOD [INAUDIBLE]. [NOISE]
>> MAY I JUST ADD, I GUESS I THINK EVERYBODY THE ONLY THING I HAD A LITTLE INDIGESTION WITH IS THE ONE MILE OR TWO MILE RULE OR THREE MILE RULE? I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD BE WRITTEN UP, BUT I GUESS MY THOUGHT PROCESS IS IF THERE WAS A 40 ACRE PROJECT PROPOSED TO BE ON THE BACK 40 AS YOU WERE SAYING, VERY WELL HIDDEN, WITHIN A MILE OF ANOTHER FACILITY OR WITHIN A MILE AND A HALF OF ANOTHER FACILITY AND IS CLOSE TO THE SUBSTATION, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'D HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
ESPECIALLY IF IT DIDN'T TAKE UP VALUABLE FARMLAND AND [NOISE]
>> IT MIGHT BE THAT BRYAN [INAUDIBLE].
>> I'M NOT AS STRICT ON THE MILEAGE AS EVERYBODY ELSE, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M SAYING [INAUDIBLE].
>> THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT A WHILE AGO THAT ANYTHING OVER 40 MEGAWATTS, HAS TO BE TWO, THREE MILES OR WHATEVER AWAY, ANYTHING LAST COULD BE WITHIN A MILE.
BUT I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT WOULD INCLUDE THIS, 40 MEGAWATTS RIGHT DOWN JUST LIKE A CHAIN LIKE DOMINOS.
>> I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO MS. LEWIS.
WHAT SUPERVISOR WOULD HAVE THAT DISCRETIONARY CLAUSE, CORRECT?
>> THEY THOUGHT IT WAS SUITABLE TO BACK 40, SO TO SPEAK, WITHIN THE ONE MILE.
IF THEY THOUGHT THAT IT WAS A PERFECT EXAMPLE, BUT CERTAIN NOT [INAUDIBLE] WOULDN'T THAT SUPERSEDE?
>> DO YOU PUT THE THREE MILE OR DO YOU SUGGEST THE THREE MILE OR JUST PUT NOTHING? TO ANSWER MR. CHESTER'S QUESTION.
CAN YOU PUT THE WORD SUGGEST OR THAT DOESN'T MATTER.
>> YOU JUST PUT A NUMBER, 1,2,3,5, WHATEVER.
THAT LAST SENTENCE SAYS THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAS THE ABILITY TO VARY ANY OF THESE THINGS.
>> WELL, HE ONLY SAID HE DIDN'T GET WARM, FUZZY, ABOUT IT.
[LAUGHTER] [BACKGROUND] I STILL LIKE THE THREE MILES, [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF THE SOBRIETY FIELD AREA, IF THIS IS SUITABLE, IT'S IN THAT ONE MILE, I CONQUER. THAT DOESN'T [INAUDIBLE].
>> YOU'RE SAYING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAS THE RIGHT TO CHANGE ANY PART OF THIS?
>> NOT ALL OF IT. YOU DIDN'T PUT THAT CLAUSE.
>> THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON THE GENERAL WELFARE.
>> THE ACREAGE AND THE MEGAWATTS WAS NOT DEBATABLE OR ATTAINABLE IN THE APPROACH SECTION, YOU SHOULD NOT PUT THAT.
>> THIS SAYS THAT THE BOARD CAN MODIFY THE STANDARDS, WHICH IS THE ONE MILE FROM UNINCORPORATED PLACE.
DECOMMISSIONING THE TECHNICAL FEES, THE VOLUNTARY AG DISTRICT, DECIDING AGREEMENT.
IT'S SPELLS OUT IN HERE WHAT THEY CAN MODIFY.
THE BOARD CAN DETERMINE THAT FURTHER SCREENING IMPROVEMENT MAY BE REDUCED, OR NOT REQUIRED BASED ON SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, SO IT SPELLS OUT IN HERE WHAT THEY CAN [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING]
>> RECOMMENDATION TO DO THAT WOULD COME THROUGH HERE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I CAN ALMOST GUARANTEE YOU, IF THE RECOMMENDATION CAME FROM HERE, THAT IT WILL BE FOLLOWED.
BUT THAT'S WITH THE PRESENT BOARD, WE HAVE SEEN HISTORY THAT WHAT WE SAID
[02:50:03]
HERE NEVER GOT LISTENED TO. I WITNESSED THAT. [OVERLAPPING]>> FIVE OR SIX YEARS, YOU'LL HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT; BILL, ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THE ONE PERCENT WILL BE USED UP BY THEN.
>> THIS ORDINANCE, AS IT STANDS NOW, DOESN'T GIVE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE THAT ONE PERCENT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
>> YEAH. [OVERLAPPING] I HATED TO REHEARSE.
>> DO WE LEAVE A THREE MILE, AND THEN LEAVE IT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD, DO YOU THINK THINGS AS FIT?
>> OKAY. WE'LL LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS.
I THINK IT'S GOOD. I COMMEND ALL OF YOU-ALL.
ANYTHING ELSE, WE CAN FOLLOW IT ON THE SOLAR PART.
SQUID AND FALL THROUGH THAT AND MAKE YOUR NOTES.
WE WANT TO SUM IT UP IN THE NEXT MEETING, CORRECT? THE FEBRUARY MEETING, AND THEN HAVE THE HEARING AT THE MARCH MEETING, CORRECT?
>> WELL, NEXT MONTH YOU'LL GET REVISED FIRST SECTION AND REVISED SECOND SECTION.
YOU'LL HAVE THE THIRD SECTION TO LOOK AT.
MAYBE AT THE MARCH MEETING, YOU'LL LOOK AT THE WHOLE THING AS A PIECE, AND HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING IN APRIL.
>> THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE APRIL.
WE WILL BE HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING.
WE JUST SLIDE IN UNDER THE 12 MONTHS.
>> THE TWELVE MONTHS IS SEPTEMBER?
>> SEPTEMBER 10TH. I WAS SITTING HERE THINKING THAT BEFORE WE CARRY THIS TO A PUBLIC HEARING, DO WE WANT TO HAVE A JOINT MEETING WITH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND GIVE THEM A COPY OF WHAT WE'VE DONE AND GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM THEM BEFORE WE CARRY IT TO A PUBLIC HEARING AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
JUST A SUGGESTION. JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
>> I'LL BRING IT UP WITH HIM AND SEE.
THAT WAY WE'RE GETTING A UNIFIED PAGE AHEAD OF TIME, INSTEAD OF A [OVERLAPPING] HAVING PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN HAVE SOME GREAT IDEAS THAT WE GOT FROM THERE.
>> I WILL DIRECTIONALLY SAY THAT THE BOARD FEELS THAT THERE'S THE LEVEL OF EXPERTISE IN LAND USE IN THIS GROUP, IT'D BE VERY HARD FOR THE BOARD.
THE BOARD IS NOT EDUCATED IN THAT AS MUCH AS THIS GROUP.
I THINK GETTING TOGETHER, I'D PREFER, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY UNUSUAL FOR THE BOARD TO MAKE ANY MAJOR MODIFICATIONS, UNLESS LEGAL OR ATTORNEY SAID SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
[OVERLAPPING] WE HAVE A VERY GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BOARD.
I HOPE WE CAN STAY LIKE THAT, MAN.
>> ONE DECISION IN THE LAST 32 YEARS THE BOARD DIDN'T GO WITH, AND YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED? I WENT TO COURT. WHAT'S THAT TELLING YOU?
>> I BELIEVE THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TRUSTS THIS BOARD'S WORK.
>> WELL, YOU DON'T SEE THAT AT OTHER PLACES.
I GOT A FRIEND WHO IS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, VIRGINIA BEACH [INAUDIBLE] REGARDED TO QUIT.
HE SAID, NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, CITY COUNCIL KNOWS WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
YOU GET SOME GOOD IDEAS FROM A PUBLIC HEARING, PEOPLE START LOOKING AT IT.
IF THEY ATTEND AND STUDY, AND MOST OF THE TIME THAT I SAID I HATED THE MOMENT.
BUT THERE'S A LOT OF IDEAS THAT CAN COME OFF THAT PODIUM THAT SOUNDS GOOD.
NO NEW BUSINESS. WE'VE HAD AN ABDOMINAL SCHEDULE FOR THE YEAR.
WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
[VII. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD]
>> [INAUDIBLE] HE CAME ON MY SHOP.
DID THAT SURPRISE IDEA, BUT I THINK HE'S FEELING OKAY.
>> YEAH. I FEEL BUT HE'D ABSOLUTELY STAY AWAY FROM THE COVID.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I [INAUDIBLE].
>> PROBLEM SOLVED. I AM SO SORRY.
I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT. BUT I AM SO SORRY.
>> NO, SIR. YOU TAKE YOUR TIME.
WE'RE GOOD. CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME PLEASE?
>> YES SIR. MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE] COX I'M WITH THE VIRGINIA LAND AND LIBERTY COALITION.
FIRST, I JUST WANT TO START, I REALLY COMMEND YOU GUYS BECAUSE PEOPLE DO NOT
[02:55:04]
HAVE THE ROBUST DISCUSSION THAT YOU GUYS HAVE TONIGHT ABOUT SOLAR, AND THAT I KNEW FROM A YOUNGER PERSON TO SEEING THAT IT MEANS A LOT.ALSO MY MR., REALLY SORRY TO HEAR ABOUT THAT.
I GOT TO KNOW FROM THE PAST YEAR, SO REALLY SORRY TO HEAR ABOUT THAT, BUT QUICKLY, I JUST WANT TO INTRODUCE OUR COALITION.
WE ARE A DIVERSE GROUP OF FARMERS, LANDOWNERS, STAKEHOLDERS WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT PROTECTING PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, INCREASING LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES, AND BEING GOOD STEWARDS OF THE LAND.
WE SUPPORT RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT BY DOING GRASSROOTS SUPPORT BASED ON FACTS AND NOT FEAR.
WE UTILIZE COMMUNICATIONS, INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS AND DIRECT ON THE GROUND ADVOCACY GAP WE COULD SEE TO EQUIP RURAL COMMUNITIES WITH THE TOOLS THEY NEED TO ENGAGE IN UTILITY-SCALE CITING EFFORTS IN A WAY THAT BENEFITS THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY WHILE HONORING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
MY MAIN GOAL TONIGHT IS REALLY JUST, I WON'T GET TOO MUCH ANYTHING SPECIFIC HERE AND WE GET A LOT COVERED TONIGHT.
I'LL BE UP HERE FOR AWHILE, BUT I JUST WOULD LIKE TO ENGAGE WITH YOU-ALL PERSONALLY PARTICULARLY BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING JUST TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION WITH YOU GUYS.
I WON'T DO THE SEVEN OR EIGHT ON ONE RIGHT HERE, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO TALK TO YOU GUYS SERIOUSLY ABOUT SOME OF THESE ISSUES THAT YOU BROUGHT UP.
I MIGHT HAVE SOME PRETTY STRONG VIEWS ON THIS OTHER SIDE, AND REALLY LOVE TO TALK WITH YOU GUYS, AND HAVE A REAL CONVERSATION ABOUT IT.
I JUST HAVE A LETTER FOR YOU GUYS HERE.
I JUST GOT MY CARD ATTACHED TO IT.
[OVERLAPPING] GUYS WOULD READ THIS AND I WILL BE REACHING OUT TO ALL OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY.
I JUST HOPE WE CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AND I'LL JUST FINISH WITH THIS, IS THAT I JUST HOPE YOU CAN CONSIDER EACH PROJECT ON ITS MERITS.
DON'T BOX YOURSELF INTO ANYTHING SILLY, LIKE YOU GOT THE POWER.
DON'T TAKE IT AWAY FROM YOURSELVES.
JUST CONSIDER EACH PROJECT ON THEIR MERITS.
>> ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COME FORWARD? IF NOT, I'M GOING CLOSE THE HEARING.
[NOISE] WE DON'T HAVE ANY VIS-A-VIS A MATTER OF TONIGHT.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU CAN LAY IT UP, BEFORE WE ADJOURN THE MEETING.
>> THANK YOU ALL, WE'RE A LITTLE BIT LATE TONIGHT, BUT WE HAD A LOT TO COVER.
[INAUDIBLE] [BACKGROUND].
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.