Planning commission asks staff to draft recommendation on public‑hearing scheduling

The King George County Planning Commission on Thursday asked county staff to draft a recommended rule change for how the commission schedules public hearings after developers and commissioners raised concerns about a new, slower scheduling process.

The request followed public comments from Hobie Mitchell, managing member of Green Energy Ventures, who said the developer has been in the county’s review process since September 2022 and urged the commission to restore the older practice under which staff and the chair scheduled hearings when an application was ready. “I’m here tonight to request a process change,” Mitchell said.

Why it matters: Applicants said the current requirement that the full planning commission vote to move an application forward creates avoidable delay. Commissioners said they want both timely processing and an opportunity for the full body to see new applications once before they advance to public hearing.

County administrator Matt Smallnick and planning staff described the practical constraints: required advertising windows and limits on how quickly a hearing can be posted. Staff said they need “approximately three weeks to advertise” and must meet a statutory advertising schedule. Clark Lemming, also representing Green Energy Ventures, told the panel that many nearby jurisdictions handle scheduling between staff and the chair and that meeting twice a month can reduce backlog.

Commission discussion focused on two tradeoffs: speeding applicants into public hearings versus ensuring the full planning commission sees proposals before they reach the public. Several commissioners proposed a compromise: allow staff and the chair to schedule hearings when appropriate but give the full commission a single preliminary presentation and at least two weeks to ask questions before a hearing is advertised.

A motion was made asking staff to prepare a recommendation that “takes into account our concerns” and returns to the commission for a vote. Commissioners amended that motion during discussion to request a two‑week review opportunity for commissioners for items not previously presented to the full body. The transcript records commissioners agreeing the change should be codified and staff and the chair agreed to work out details, but there was no final ordinance vote at this meeting.

What happens next: Staff accepted the assignment and told the commission it will draft recommended rule language and follow up with the chair for details. Commissioners said they expect to review staff’s proposal at the next meeting before making any formal change to the commission’s rules.

Context and limits: The commission’s discussion included citations to the county’s advertising timetable and commission bylaws but no statutory text was adopted. The meeting record does not show a completed vote adopting the rule change; it shows a request for staff recommendation and consensus among commissioners to pursue an update.