Board of Supervisors Regular First Meeting   4/3/2024

Now it's working.

Okay, good.

I'm pleased to call to order this regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on this 3rd of April, 1 p.m.

in Lane Auditorium.

I'd like to note that at the dais we have Supervisor Mike Pruitt of the Scottsville District, Supervisor Bea LaPisto-Kirtley of the Rivanna District, Supervisor Diantha McKeel of the Jack Jouett District, Supervisor Ned Gallaway of the Rio District, Supervisor Ann Mallek of the White Hall District, and myself, Jim Andrews, representing the Samuel Miller District.

A quorum is present.

We're also joined here by our county executive, Mr. Jeff Richardson, our county attorney, Mr. Steve Rosenberg, and our clerk, Ms.

Claudette Borgerson and our senior deputy clerk, Mr. Travis Morris.

Also, let me please welcome Albemarle County police officers, present officers Andy Muncie and Matthew Middleton.

Thank you.

And I want to make note that we have, since it was first published, added to the consent agenda item 8.7.1, which would cancel the April 10th budget work session, meaning that if the consent agenda is adopted on that part, our next meeting would be April 17th.

So with that noted, and any others anybody might bring to attention, I would look for a motion to adopt the final agenda as amended.

So we have a motion from Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley, second from Supervisor McKeel.

Ms.

Mallek.

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel.

Aye.

Mr. Pruitt.

Aye.

Mr. Gallaway.

Yes.

Ms.

Thank you very much.

Let me get to my right page here.

So just two announcements of LEAP, the Local Energy Alliance Project, presents Solarize Virginia.

It is now time for people interested to sign up for information about solar panels, free home assessments, and discounted rates for transitioning your home to more use of solar energy.

And this is the 10th anniversary of Solarize Virginia, and the

application time is April 1st to June 30th.

So please contact Leap of SolarizeVA.org to get all the information.

And because it is spring and spring is when plant sales happen, the White Hall Verge and 14th annual plant sale will be held one day only, Saturday, April 27th, 8 to 1, rain or shine at the community building in White Hall at 2904, Browns-Capturn Mike.

And see you there.

Come early.

Thank you.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.

Thank you very much.

I just wanted to commend staff regarding the budget town halls that have so far already been held.

And I think there might be some more coming up.

And I encourage everyone to attend.

Or if they've already attended, that is great if they have any questions, you know, to notify us.

But it was a really good

presentation from staff to let the public know what our budget is all about.

I have no announcements today.

First, I would like to join Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley in thanking both staff for their continued push on both the community outreach element of the budget and the actual budget development process.

This is my first year really in the driver's seat and watching the sausage get made with the budget and it is a tremendous effort that staff put together so I'd like to thank them and again the members of the public who have been similarly engaged throughout.

It's been a

Really inspiring to see the community all work together on this.

I would also, as per usual, like to remind all members of the public that we do have in-person early voting beginning for the primary elections for Congress in our district beginning on May the 3rd.

Again, we have primaries in both the Republican and the Democrat primaries.

They're all going to be fairly tightly contested, so your vote matters in whichever of those two primaries you choose to vote in.

Thank you.

Yes, a couple of things.

The Jack Jouett Town Hall is scheduled for this coming Monday which is April the 8th.

I think that's correct, yes.

Monday, April the 8th, it will be held at Journey Middle School at the Media Center at Journey Middle School and it's scheduled for, well, it'll start at 5.30, but we'll have a brief business meeting for the CAC first and then we'll move into our town hall.

So, the other item that I just want to mention is that on March the 21st,

Dr. Daniel Jordan passed away and he was certainly instrumental in bringing Monticello into the 21st century.

A great leader that we had in this community, he added educational programs at Monticello that discuss slavery and race in honest ways.

and he'll be missed.

And I do want to just comment from the viewpoint of I was a school board member during his tenure.

And Dian was always very connected to Monticello High School.

He reached out to me after we named it Monticello and was just thrilled of the association of the name.

And I don't ever remember during his tenure once Monticello High School opened.

At every 4th of July, naturalization program, Dian had a Monticello High School student on the stage.

They either sang, they led the Pledge of Allegiance, they read a passage of some sort, but he really honored Monticella High School.

It was really endearing.

So I just wanted to mark his passing and he was a loss to the community.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Board, I just want to again add my appreciation for staff and those members of the public who have come out to the town halls so far.

We had two in Samuel Miller District.

The town hall at BF Yancy so far has drawn the greatest number of people, I think, for a single town hall.

So I'll leave that out there as a challenge for those who have town halls remaining.

I also want to again mention this year that Batesville Day is May 4th and it's always a great day, so I'll bring that up again.

And this is just the full text of the proclamation as written as a motion.

Yes.

I would like to move that the Board adopt a proclamation recognizing dark sky week.

Whereas the aesthetic beauty and wonder of a natural night sky is a shared heritage of all humankind.

The experience of standing beneath a starry night sky inspires feelings of wonder and awe.

Many people in Albemarle County live under a dome of light pollution.

Excessive artificial lighting at night that disrupts natural darkness and may never experience the visual wonder or ecological and health benefits of living under a dark sky and whereas light pollution has scientifically established economic and environmental consequences.

which result in a significant impact to the ecology and human health of all communities.

And light pollution represents a waste of natural resources, mounting to roughly $3 billion per year of wasted energy in the United States and contributes to climate change.

And whereas Albemarle County has adopted the Biodiversity Action Plan to protect the many species which rely on undisturbed night environments to hunt, mate, and thrive.

Albemarle County is home to Fan Mountain Observatory, operated by the Astronomy Department of the University of Virginia.

The southernmost edge of Albemarle County is less than 10 miles from the James River State Park, which is one of four Virginia State Parks designated as an International Dark Sky Park by the International Dark Sky Association and, whereas the International Dark Sky Association is the globally recognized authority on light pollution,

and has created International Dark Sky Week to raise awareness of light pollution and provide free education, resources and solutions to the public to encourage the protection of and enjoyment of dark skies and responsible outdoor lighting.

We have a motion from Supervisor Pruitt and a second from Supervisor McKeel.

Ms.

Mallek.

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel.

Yes.

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley.

and Board.

I think we have Ms.

Christina Hirschputnam here to accept the proclamation and make some remarks.

Thank you so much.

Great to see you.

Can I bring my fellow dark sky enthusiasts up here with me?

Wonderful.

Well, on behalf of the Natural Heritage Committee, the Piedmont Dark Skies Group, astronomers, naturalists, and my fellow citizens, I want to thank you for your support in addressing light pollution.

and I just want to say light pollution.

Unfortunately, this is increasing by just about 10% per year, which is really astounding.

And so the disappearing darkness not only limits our view of the star but it also has serious health implications for every living thing on this planet.

For billions of years, all biological processes have evolved with the Earth's predictable rhythm of night and day.

It's encoded in our DNA.

Lighting up the night disrupts this predictable cycle.

In addition, excessive outdoor lighting is disorienting and often fatal for migrating birds and nocturnal insects.

and it just so happens that this week coincides with the peak bird migration that's happening in the Northern Hemisphere.

So just want to make note of that.

And I'm Carol Carter and I also just want to say thank you.

We can all do something to reduce light pollution, whether it's switching off a light bulb, pulling down our blinds, talking to a neighbor or business about over lighting, or joining Piedmont Dark Skies.

Thank you.

If you'll hold for a minute, I think we'll probably want to add comments.

So I'll give the board a chance.

Thank you.

I'm horrified about the 10% increase per year because back in the 80s, when my kids were in elementary school, the kids from town all came to our backyard to lie on the grass and look at the constellations because that was the only place they could be seen.

So we all have to do a much better job on this.

Thank you.

I am very appreciative of the Dark Skies Initiative and anyone who doesn't understand it, just go to a large city, live in a large city.

I lived in the LA, in LA County.

We didn't see stars, maybe a couple times a year.

That was it.

It was like, oh my gosh, look, there's stars up there.

Came here, you see stars.

what a difference.

That's something we need to protect and maintain.

So very much in favor.

Thank you for doing this.

Thank you for being here today and for the comments and for your work on this.

I would mention that a week ago I visited my hometown in Wheeling, West Virginia, which not that it's void of light pollution, but it was a point of comparison that there was a noticeable difference from my front porch and where I was at in Wheeling and I was not off

in the rural areas, but even in a place that is a city in that town, there was still a note, I noted a difference, so just thought I would share that.

Thank you.

I was going to hand that when we're all done with the remarks.

Is that appropriate?

Thank you so much for being here and for your work on this issue.

I know when you first brought it to my attention, or rather when you more recently brought it to my attention.

I had just come back from visiting my father who lives where I grew up in rural South Carolina in the upstate in the mountains.

and I had just been in the front yard with him while I was visiting and he was looking up at the night sky and asking me to describe what he was seeing because he had some cataracts that were developing and making it hard for him to see the stars and I remembered growing up as a child, going out with my parents, taking our night sky at us, learning all the stars above me and I worry that this very simple memory, this very

seemingly inconsequential but so impactful memory is something that we have future generations that won't have.

I served on a ship in the Navy and it is a truly majestic and powerful thing.

You are crossing the Atlantic, you are having a bad time, you are trapped on an iron box at work.

and you're able to go outside when you're up, watch six hours in the middle of the night and look up and the entire universe is above you with a kind of just power and majesty that I worry we don't have on land anywhere else in America.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you very much for bringing this forward.

I've lived in a neighborhood for over 50 years that has lots of astronomers from UVA.

And every time someone has mentioned putting up a street light, the response has been, no, just anecdotally.

I will say, though, that I am very hopeful

that when we update our 20, 25-year-old lighting ordinance that you all will be following this with us and coming back to us at the appropriate times to say, think about this, think about that, because updating that ordinance and bringing it into the 21st century would actually make, I think, a difference for our community.

The other thing I would add is, well, two more things and I'll stop then, but I have been very concerned over the last decade in watching the lighting industry moving to the dusk to dawn, postlamps,

because when I look around my neighborhood, those are the ones that are really, you know, they go on automatically, they go off, which is, you know, we all think is great, but they are really a problem and I don't know how we get at the industry recognizing that that's a problem.

I'll just let it, leave it at that.

And the only other thing I'd like to add is that in our community, you only have to drive up to Pantops.

No offense, Bea.

You only have to drive to Pantops to see the scatter from the University of Virginia.

And I'm not blaming just the University of Virginia, but my point is we're all in this together, and we have a community that we're not going to get to dark skies if we don't get the city and university working on this initiative together, and I think that's critical.

Also, I have my thanks for your initiative with this proclamation.

I know it is about dark skies, but it also speaks to astronomy for me, and I'm one of the only ones up there.

I think that's taught a full-term course in astronomy and enjoyed forcing students to come to the campus telescope at 4 a.m.

in order to have some dark skies.

But I really appreciate that.

And I think it, you know, because it's Dark Eye Week, it happens to include April 8th.

I should mention that we've got a major eclipse in this country coming, so safe travels and safe viewing for any of those who might be traveling to where they can see it.

Obviously, you don't look directly at the sun.

So even with an eclipse.

So anyway, thank you again.

and Supervisor Pruitt, you have a confirmation?

Yes, sure.

Just a second.

Thank you.

We'll come back together.

Yes, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that I've read an article regarding LED lights on the front of cars and how they're blinding.

And I think the effect of LED lights is having a significant, unfortunately, pros and cons that last longer and everything.

We know that saves energy.

but the brightness, it frankly bothers me.

I'm not sure we need it that bright and I do look forward to an update of our lighting ordinance.

The board will now move to item number seven from the public.

Matters on the agenda but not listed for public hearing are matters previously considered by the board or matters that are pending before the board.

And I believe we have a number of people signed up to speak.

Vice Chair McKeel will read the rules for in-person.

Are there any online speakers?

No online.

For in-person speakers, a reminder that our rules are that 10 speakers unless the board needs to change that.

During the time set aside for matters on the agenda but not listed for public hearing, individuals may address the Board of Supervisors concerning matters previously considered by the Board or matters that are pending before the Board other than items listed on the agenda for public hearing.

Individuals are allowed one opportunity of up to three minutes to speak at each Board meeting during matters from the public.

A sign-up sheet is managed

by the clerk's office.

Up to 10 persons may speak during each matter from the public session.

Timekeeping is conducted through a timer and a light system at the podium.

The green light will go on when you begin speaking, which begins your allotted time.

The yellow light indicates you have one minute to finish speaking.

The red light indicates your time has expired and you will be asked to end your comments.

to give all speakers equal treatment and courtesy, the board requests that speakers adhere to the following guidelines.

When addressing the board, state your name and if you live in Albemarle County, your magisterial district.

Address comments directly to the board as a whole.

Any written statements or other supporting material may be given to the clerk.

If representing a group or organization, you may ask others present to raise their hands in recognition.

Speakers may not share any unused time with another speaker.

Back and forth debate is not permitted.

Do not speak from your seat or out of turn.

And all comments are live streamed, recorded, and published on the Albemarle County website.

And with that, our first speaker for today is Carlos Armengold.

Armengold?

We're going to get it right.

Welcome.

Please adjust the microphone as appropriate.

How do I change the?

How do I move the?

Good afternoon.

My name is Carlos Armand Gould and I live in the Samuel Miller District.

Thank you, Chairperson Andrews and fellow supervisors for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you today about the Ragged Mountain Reservoir and its importance to our community, a topic that you will discuss later this evening.

This beautiful piece of land lies a few short miles from here.

I would like the Board of Supervisors to consider changing the Albemarle County Code that prohibits any activity not permitted at the reservoir so as to allow other recreational activities.

like running and mountain biking.

I have two sons who attended Albemarle County Schools and graduated from Monticello High School in 2022.

They loved riding their bikes and hiking at Reagan Mountain when they were young, whether they were riding with their family or practicing with the team.

As a pediatrician with over 25 years of experience at Pediatric Associates to Charlottesville, I come to this topic from a different perspective.

During my career, I have witnessed ever-increasing rates of childhood obesity.

The latest CDC numbers from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey paint a grim picture of obesity in America's youth, especially if you belong to a minority group.

As a result, I have made it a priority to encourage physical activity for our community's children and adolescents, as a coach for various sports, including as an assistant for the Monticello High School mountain bike team.

Intuitively, physical activity should have many positive benefits.

And not surprisingly, numerous studies have supported the association of physical activity with improved health and well-being.

As a coach, I'm happy to report that I see these benefits play out every practice and at every event.

Researchers have identified various barriers to physical activity in children and adolescents, barriers that we as adults can control and affect, particularly in the built environment.

As a coach and pediatrician, my priority is to remove barriers for children and adolescents and allow them to have opportunities for physical activity and mentorship.

The CDC has produced guidelines for communities to follow regarding physical activity.

Access to Ragged Mountain helps alleviate some of these barriers, including access to safe and easily accessible facilities for our youth to use for recreation.

Time is not on our side.

The longer the community, the county delays updating this code, the harder it becomes for our youth to access the amenities at Ragged Mountain.

Please consider taking action now.

Hi, everyone.

I'm Mark Lorenzoni.

I live in the Jack Jouett District.

I've lived there since 78.

I first want to thank you.

I know I'm eating up some of my time doing this, but I don't get to speak to you like this in this scenario for the work you do on an ongoing basis.

It's often thankless, but

Trust me, it's not unnoticed, so I thank each of you, all of you, for your work.

I'm here to speak on the same topic, recreational use at the Raggamount Natural Area.

I live in the county, but I wear a different hat, some of you may know.

My family is owned business within the city, and our customers are really, awesomely, the demographic of the people that I think should be able to

and so on.

People are taken by the fact that the proximity of this incredible resource.

The other hat is both Cynthia and I, our Parks and Rec graduates in Michigan State.

We're old people, so we graduated in the 70s, early 80s, and this is the exact, exact type of thing we were studying back in classes at Michigan State, was shared usage of public space.

This is a beautiful opportunity to really have a landmark scenario

I'm something we can be proud of.

I'm proposing, with your blessing or with your guidance, that we form a committee of folks that represent all of those entities that I talked about earlier, birdwatching, hiking, walking, running, cycling, and we figure out how we can use this facility moving forward together, collegially.

I've got lots of ideas.

I'm not going to waste my time here.

and your time talking about it.

But this can be a really tremendous project that we can be proud of moving forward.

I personally see this.

People have been calling this divisive, controversial.

I look at it the opposite way.

This is an opportunity for the county and for our community to do something special, to have a recreation area that is shared usage.

So I'm offering to be part of that.

I would love to be a part of it.

This is the kind of stuff I love rolling my sleeves up on and I'm moving forward.

Hi there, I'm Gracie Agnew and I live in the Samuel Miller District.

I'm here to speak on behalf of myself, my friends and family, and the whole of the mountain bike community on the same topic as the two previous speakers, the Ragon Mountain Reservoir.

I don't know if any of you have had the pleasure of walking or riding at the Ragon Mountain Reservoir, but it is beautiful.

Before it was closed down to riders, my family and I rode there just about weekly.

Additionally, I have friends in

My neighborhood friends and fellow teammates because I'm on the Monticello High School mountain bike team that live in my neighborhood and we have also enjoyed riding over to Ragged together.

One of the big factors that contributes to Ragged being one of our favorite places to ride is its accessibility and proximity.

We have other wonderful places we can ride, for example, Walnut Creek, but a car is required to get there, and I don't always have access to a car and neither do many of my teammates, so Ragged makes for a great place that we can meet and we're able to ride our bikes to get there.

The mountain bike community just a few years ago was barely present in the past few years.

It has grown substantially, not only the people, but also the trail networks around Charlottesville.

And much of this growth and maintenance is due to hard work put in by the mountain bike community.

The very trails at Ragged, which were now banned from riding, we put a lot of work into those, for example, the Cambic organization.

I'm sure that Albemarle doesn't want to be a county that's quashing the spirits of volunteers and making them ask questions like why did we put so much work into these trails if we're not actually going to get to enjoy the fruit of our labor.

Next, I also understand that a county needs money to run on.

and so on.

the highlight of that ride.

And we have great tourist, attractive tourist destinations like UVA and Monticello.

And I believe with 50 miles of trails, Charlottesville could be a mountain biking hub.

And this could be another attractive tourist destination.

We could bring people who are clearly willing to invest considerably in their sport.

to Charlottesville, and by bringing more people into Charlottesville, we're bringing more money into Albemarle County.

So, in short, I think instead of impeding the mountain bike community, which is made up of people who enjoy being outdoors and are willing to voluntarily maintain the trails around Charlottesville, I believe instead of impeding it, we should be promoting it.

This will support high school students like me who enjoy getting in a ride after school, and this will also support the community as a whole by making Charlottesville a more popular destination.

Chair Andrews, supervisors, County Executive Richardson and staff, thank you for this opportunity, not just today, but every day, for comments from the public.

I'm here today representing CAA, the Charlottesville Area Alliance.

and would like to read a statement of support from them.

CAA supports maintaining the current Albemarle County ordinances regarding authorized uses of rugged mountain natural area as an age-friendly open space.

CAA was formed in 2015 with a vision that the Charlottesville area will be the most age-friendly community in the country.

We are an alliance and we incorporate businesses, organizations, and governments who are supporting age-friendly living.

Our mission is to lead the advancement of an age-friendly community through participation in the Liveable Communities World Health Organization program.

Thank you.

Now for something completely different.

Good afternoon.

Neil Williamson with the Free Enterprise Forum.

Can 15 words make a difference?

The right 15 words in the right place can make all the difference.

The very heart of planning is the concept of looking ahead.

Later today you'll be discussing the 20-year forward-looking AC-44 comprehensive plan.

The Free Enterprise Forum has been very vocal during the preparation of AC-44 regarding the need to expand the development areas.

as often as we have raised our concerns or potential solutions like the Lasagna Plan, the Board of Supervisors has made infinitely clear their unwillingness to expand the development areas in this iteration of the comprehensive plan.

While we remain convinced the development area expansion is needed, we can also count noses.

Perhaps the Board will be willing to consider adding 15 words to the AC44 community facilities infrastructure and services chapter you're discussing in the work session today.

Today, here we are at the AC44 Phase 2 of a three-year planning exercise to update a plan that is updated every five years.

Would this not be the appropriate place to add 15 words to the third page of this chapter?

We believe that these 15 words are added and followed.

It could positively impact Albemarle County beyond the current planning horizon of 2044.

Under public water and sewer objective 1.2, coordinate with RWSA and ACSA to provide public water and sewer service in the development areas in a fiscally responsible and sustainable manner consistent with the growth management policy.

That's what's currently written.

The Free Enterprise Forum proposes adding the 15 following words, identify the most fiscally responsible and sustainable areas to potentially expand the current development areas.

While not a lovely piece of prose, these 15 words would direct RWSA and ACSA to examine the potential expansion of their infrastructure to serve the potential expansion of the development area.

by adopting this language, the 2029 Board of Supervisors, perhaps with some of you still sitting here, will have data to drive the decisions regarding development expansion that will definitely be needed when you next review the comprehensive plan for the AC50 plan.

The free enterprise forum has to ask, why would you not want to know?

Thank you.

Good afternoon, my name is Rob McGinnis and I'm here representing the Piedmont Environmental Council.

My following comments pertain to the draft solar renewable energy goals and objectives for the community facilities chapter for the updated comprehensive plan.

There are contradictions contained within goal two solar renewable energy which could cumulatively hinder rural area chapter goals one and two which aim to support working force and the agricultural economy.

Objective 2.1 List Timberland as a recommendation for where solar facilities should be sited.

As nearly all land in the county has been timbered sometime in the past, this objective is not useful for best siting practices, as it would affect allow siting anywhere.

Timberland, for all its short-term unsightliness, does regenerate, whereas removing the tree stumps followed by mass grading typical many utility-scale solar projects terminates this natural process.

In contrast, Objective 2.2 states the impacts to forest oil resources will be minimized.

Timbered land is still forest land.

It is just in the early ages, stages of regeneration.

Objective 2.3 does not include protection of forest cover, so despite including priority protections of silviculture soils, the county will not be minimizing impacts to forest oil resources if it is removing forest land from production and preventing it from returning to forest cover in the future.

The county's draft solar energy facility ordinance includes a requirement for a siting agreement between the county and the developer.

The community facilities objectives for solar facility siting should include a recommendation that mitigation of impacts to prime ag soils and loss of forest land should be mitigated via the siting agreement.

The monies received by the county from the developer should be directed to the county's purchase of development rights programs.

Lastly, and unrelated, a quick comment on the county's list of rural roads listed for paving.

A number of the roads on the current paving list have significant cultural and recreational values, one of the most important being Deca Lane.

We hope the county will consider options other than paving.

Paul Sullivan.

Thank you.

Our next item is the adoption of the consent agenda.

I mentioned previously that we've added 8.71, cancelling the April 10 budget work sessions, previously discussed.

I am not aware at this time of any other amendments, so the floor is open to motion to adopt the amended consent agenda.

So moved.

Second.

with a motion from Supervisor Mallek, a second from Supervisor McKeel.

Ms.

Mallek?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Mr. Pruitt?

Aye.

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Board.

We're now ready for item nine, which is S.L.

Williamson, consideration of claim, led by Mr. Steve Rosenberg, our county attorney.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This matter concerns a claim presented by S.L.

Williamson Company to the Board of Supervisors in connection with a contract for the Ivy Road Sidewalk Improvements Project that was entered into between the county and S.L.

Williamson Company, Incorporated on July 17th, 2021.

Council to the contractor presented the claim in person to the board at its meeting on March 6, 2024.

And on that same date,

County Attorney's Office briefed the board concerning the claim in a closed meeting.

Then the matter is now before the board for consideration, attached to the agenda briefing, I'm sorry, attached to the executive summary, are two resolutions.

Attachment A is a resolution to accept the claim.

and Attachment B as a resolution to deny the claim.

The amount claimed is $238,207.29 and as indicated in the executive summary consistent with the advice of the county attorney's office, staff recommends that the board deny the claim as made by SL Williamson Company.

As I indicated, you have the two resolutions.

You have the staff recommendation based on the advice of the county attorney's office and the matter is now before the board.

Thank you.

I'll make the motion.

I move to adopt the proposed resolution to deny claim asserted by SL Williamson Company, Inc.

We have a motion from Supervisor McKeel, second from Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.

Ms.

Mallek.

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel.

Yes.

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley.

Thank you, Board.

That gets us to item number 10, work session, the VDOT Albemarle County Fiscal Year 25-30 Draft Secondary Six-Year Plan.

And I believe that will be led by Mr. Albert Greenblum, Planner 1, from Transportation.

Good afternoon, Chair Andrews, Board.

My name is LaBeer Karina Plon, and I am a transportation planner with and planning within community development.

This presentation will cover the draft secondary six year plan for this year, as well as a draft list of roads that are to be paved under the rural rustic program.

The secondary six year document is a document that applies to the roads in the secondary system and identifies funding allocated for the next fiscal year and estimates the funding for the next five fiscal years.

Telethede funding stems from utility companies paying a fee to VDOT to put lines in the right-of-way.

These funds right now are being used to help fund the Burke Martry Airport or extension by Airport Road.

District grant unpaid funds are used on both rural rustic and other projects, including the previous Rio Mills extension.

This plan is updated and adopted by the Board annually each spring.

The secondary six-year plan is heavily informed by the Albemarle County priority list for secondary

Road Improvements-Unpaid Roads.

It is guided by the Albemarle County Unpaid Road policies and review process.

The document was updated in May of 2022 to now require demonstration of support from two-thirds of residential property owners along the road segments.

These are the seven roads that have been prioritized for paving as part of this year's secondary six-year program.

Three have enough signatures to move forward.

Subtle in the road was approved last year, but extensive drainage work pushed paving to this year.

both Blair Park Road and Starlight Road are one signature from crossing the two-third threshold.

Burton Road and Burton Lane still need to receive enough signatures.

There has been confusion about what can be paved with these two roads, Burton Road and Burton Lane.

All of Burton Lane is eligible for paving.

Just the southern half of Burton Road from Burton Lane down to North Garden Lane is eligible for paving.

These two projects are independent of each other and one does not require the other to move forward.

when signatures and feedback are received, staff will return for resolutions to pave the roads under the rural rustic program in May.

20 Point Pass was paved in two segments last year, a northern portion and a southern portion.

There were requests from citizens at the end of the northern portion to extend paving an additional .2 mile south.

That segment did not qualify for paving under the rural rustic guidelines due to narrowness and other safety concerns.

If constructed, this would be a more substantial road project requiring right-of-way, vegetation clearing, and some road widening.

VDOT has preliminary estimated the cost of this project to be about $86,000.

Funds from the district grant unpaid pot of money could be used towards paving this section of the road.

Assuming that all roads this year receive the necessary number of signatures, there would not be leftover funds this year to complete that paving of 20-point pass.

The Board may vote to add it to this year's paving list, but it would, again, certainly push one of the roads to this year's list the next year.

I want to coordinate more with VDOT, but if some roads do not receive enough signatures this year by the May 15th public hearing deadline, those funds could maybe be shifted to 20-point pass.

and then for board action, staff will return on May 15th for public hearing on the secondary six-year plan, where the board will consider a resolution to adopt FY2530 secondary six-year plan.

There is still time for roads that do not have enough signatures to get them, but the deadline will be the public hearing.

The letters that are already sent out are the only communication I really have with landowners.

I encourage both board members and residents on these roads to reach out to neighbors to make sure that they are aware of the letters

and to respond to me to indicate their support or disapproval for pavement of these roads.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Craneflin.

We will go through our order.

Thank you.

Is this the appropriate time to ask?

Yes, please.

First of all, I apologize for that squashed cell on the extension sheet.

Essentially, it says that

Only part of it.

For about 20 years, it's been the geometry of the roadway period that's caused it not to qualify.

So I guess we still need more data about that.

Because it keeps popping up on the list, usually is a response on one phone call.

And then we get 35 emails to people to say, we don't want this.

So this is a problem with not establishing these and getting them listed separately.

This year, Deccalane is not considered for paving this year as part of this year's secondary six year plan.

Thank you.

So thank you very much for your presentation.

A point of clarification from what Supervisor Mallek said regarding Decalaine.

Were you saying that it would just be a portion of Decalaine, not the whole thing?

Yes, correct.

Stony Point Pass, there was like the middle section that could not be paved because it was too mountainy, but it was two different portions.

And regarding Stony Point Pass, I know I've been getting, as you have, a lot of emails regarding that point two.

And we talked about it in the beginning, the roads were paved back in the fall, which was very nice.

And then we said we'd bring this up again if there were additional funding.

from what I understand is that I understand the price and what would have to be done if the others on the list do not comply with the signatures.

With that free up, you're saying that would free up if they don't follow through for the other projects by getting the signatures.

Yes, potentially.

I would want to check with VDOT and coordinate with them to make sure that they're able to do it.

But in theory, if roads that do not get enough signatures, that money becomes freed up and maybe used.

Okay.

And if we, and if they do get the signatures, then that means that the only way to get that point to portion paved would be that we, the board, would have to

Cole from another project.

So the district grant on paid money can be used for that as well.

It would probably be something that could be added to next year's list since there's every year it kind of, you know, regenerates itself.

So if all the roads move forward with paving or with signatures to be paved this year, it would be most likely that Stony Point Pass would be for next year's round of paving.

in general.

It would be still using the same pot of money the district grant.

Okay, so if we get the signatures, and if all those projects that are currently on the list get paid, then there's still a possibility for Stony Point Pass next year.

Okay, I know.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

Hi, Tanya Schwarzengerber with the Community Development Department as well.

Just to clarify a little bit, I believe it would be up to the Board's discretion if you wanted to add Stony Point Pass to the list that is funded.

If all the other projects or all the other roads have enough signatures, you could

I just, I mean the board has been so good and so patient with getting Stony Point Pass paved, well we did get paved in that small section.

I mean I would leave that up to the board.

I would ask if that's possible.

I'm not sure I want to bump anyone's project.

I think I'd like to be respectful of that.

Yes.

Yes, and thank you for clarifying that.

But yes, it would be up to board discretion to have that segment paved.

Again, not under the rural rustic guidelines, it would be a more

and so on and so forth.

It's a substantial road project.

But yes, it would most likely bump off a project for this year's list if it was added.

But again, there's always next year, which is a new Slater roads and we don't really have an idea yet of what next year's list looks like.

Got it, okay.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Two very simple questions.

The first, I'm just embarrassed to acknowledge that I don't know how we count these votes.

So the two thirds, so I go to the Albemarle County GIS webpage and then from the affected road segment that's getting paved, I pull all the landowners that live there and I have the whole list and so I send out letters to each one of them and it's throughout the entire list of people on that road.

So if there are 100 people on a road, you need 66 or 67 of them to actually affirmatively email me.

Yes.

Got it.

Thank you.

Could you help me understand?

There's an interesting little note in the Glendauer project that has been approved by the two thirds that it could potentially be split into two projects at Colesrunning Road.

So this was this for a lot of these longer roads that have intersections and kind of are bisected by roads.

I think it's bisected by cold rolling road about halfway in the middle.

Glendale extends from Blenheim Road on the eastern side to Route 20 on the southwestern side.

So close along to about the middle half.

Some of these roads since they're so long and sometimes

The road differs in its geometry as you go through, and there are sometimes portions where people want to get paved and people don't want to get paved.

Do we have divergent feedback on that?

I have not seen very much divergent feedback on a split so far, so I've not forwarded that.

If we do, we still have time, so I'm coming here in early April, we still have until May 15th, so if there is a

Large Upswell of residents who are registered to that.

We can move forward with that and talk about that as well.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My only sort of questions are addressing sort of this decalane issue which is in my district in that... Half of it.

Only half of it.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Only half of it.

Not all of it.

In that there appeared to be a lot of confusion by the way the list was

and so I don't know if there's a way, first of all I want to confirm that this process is working in staff's opinion and that whether there's a way to indicate

Maybe it was because that got scrunched a little bit that there's, you know, substantial opposition exists.

Short of trying to go back to the old way, which was to maintain no paving lists where it was kind of the supervisor that decided where it happened to be elected.

Whereas I really like the idea that two thirds of owners, users along that road are the ones who are in control of their destiny and appreciate their desire not to have that road paved.

For my opinion, this is my second year doing the secondary six-year road plan process in the rural rustic.

I believe that the two-thirds rule that was instituted is a good rule because it gives a lot more agency to the homeowners and the landlords on that actual road, and it puts the, I guess, the onus on them.

They want it paved or not, on them themselves, and it's not up to as much the board.

And we kind of go with the way people want to have it paved.

So, for example, if Decalaine really does not want to be paved, then it won't be paved into rural rustic, and that's the decision.

for the people on that road.

Thank you.

I really appreciate that.

I will comment that I received a request from one of the Planning Commissioner members to have further identification of which roads are used by bikers and runners, and I don't know if that information is something that could be provided as these matters come up, but I throw that out there as an idea.

also was interested in planning commission feedback, but I don't know that that's necessary.

Yes, I sent a list to the roads back in mid-January, I believe, so I've received mostly feedback, but

Brownland, and Burn Road.

I have still a lot of people that I've not heard back from yet, so there's still plenty of going either way of being paid or not being paid, so I've not heard back.

Thank you again for the suggestion of using data about bikers and walkers in these roads as well.

Thank you for that recognition because that's been shared, that's been requested many, many times over the last five years to consider other users than just the cars.

So my question then is when would be the appropriate time

to have that better discussion for the board.

Is it the May, whatever it is, hearing, or is it a separate meeting to talk about how we can use readily available software that's already documenting all these hotspots for where other activity is going on.

I'll use the decalane as a consider as a example.

Ridge Road has been a long popular place for running groups for years.

It has almost no parking.

and where there has been parking, it has blocked access for emergency vehicles and stuff when people park on both sides of the road.

So there has been a moderately successful effort on the part of some of the running clubs to ask their people to park at Amer with Lewis or what do we call it now, Ivy, elementary.

and the White Hall District

Sammy Miller District.

So I would like some guidance on when that discussion needs to happen and the consideration of the rural gravel roads and the other uses.

The reason that more than 10 years ago Dickwoods Road was put on, was the first of the do not paid list, was because the residents got so furious at having a new neighbor move in who had been told by somebody in their sale process that the road was going to be paid next year and not to worry about the dust when there is absolutely no interest

in Paving

be able to get out in places where there are no sidewalks and walk.

This is a use that I think needs to be talked about and figure out how that can be incorporated into this process.

The district grant is still a zero sum.

and so on.

is not really emphasized very much, but it seems like you ought to have substantial traffic in order to even get on the list before the county spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to do anything.

And secondly, Fox Mountain is on the list, and it says BOS suggestion, and I absolutely did not put it on there.

So it would be one of the things that I would want to add as a do not pay because of the

There is no way that the county can meet the state requirements to say this will not be an open door to subdivision and development if that road is paved.

That will be the end of that whole part of the mountain if that road is paved.

Thank you.

And I'm not entirely sure when the right time is to meet with the board or the PC about using the data, but that's something I'll talk with my team about when the right time is to bring that up.

Okay.

There have been everybody on the board and others, all the planning commissioners as well and staff have received maps, the Strava maps and things for months and months and months.

So it's out there and easily doesn't require a purchase of extra software or anything else to be able to get the information available.

Thank you.

Kind of to continue and pick up the same thread that my peers on the board are touching on.

You know, Glendale Road is also part of a popular seven-mile loop that runners enjoy.

I'm curious when we do, when we are actually reaching out to Culpeper District to execute on a requested pavement that has the adequate amount of support, how much

flexibility and direction do we have to take measures that might enable more shared use?

Do we have the ability to request wider margins, colored blockers on the edge that might discourage cars, this kind of thing?

Is there any kind of flexibility or is it just like, no, we pave it and the quickest and cheapest?

So the Royal Rustic is trying to keep it as rural as possible so it really is paving within the existing so if it's an 18 foot wide road bed then it stays an 18 foot wide road and that has drainage on each side.

So

Thinking out loud, maybe for the benefit of the Board, really the only option to expand other kinds of uses would not be on the road itself, would be trailblazing alongside it, right?

Like if frequent users were alongside the road in the drainage ditch and it became trailblazed and usable, which is not really in the scope of what we can do a direct.

I invite all of you to come out and see the state mandated ditching that's going on.

They haven't done it in 30 years.

The ditches are right at the edge of the pavement and they're three feet deep.

So if you get pushed off, you're going to have a broken leg at the very least.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right.

We are coming back together.

Moving on to item 11, the AC44 work session, draft goals and objectives for community facilities led by Mr. Ben Holt, Senior Planner 2.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Thank you, Ben Holt with the County's Long Range Planning Team.

All right, so just one more time for the record, Ben Holt, Long Range Planning Team, and I'll be presenting on AC44 Comprehensive Plan Update on the topic of community facilities, draft goals, and objectives.

So this afternoon we'll cover the work session which centers around the discussion of the draft goals and objectives within the community facilities chapter and the relevant direction for the growth management policy as pertains to the subject.

At the end of the session we'll include the upcoming schedule for AC44 after we finish our discussion.

Feedback from both the public and the Planning Commission on this subject of community facilities is included in your packets.

So staff is now seeking the Board's input on these draft goals and objectives and including any additions or suggested changes you have for the chapter content.

So I'll give a brief overview on the topic of community facilities and how that relates to growth management and then hopefully we'll have plenty of time for our discussion.

So beginning with the growth management policy, that policy provides critical direction for the development facilities and infrastructure within the county.

This policy directs growth within the designated development areas, and that currently comprises roughly 5% of the county land area.

The rest of the county is designated as rural area, which prioritizes the preservation of land for agriculture, forestry, and protection of environmental resources.

The development area is intended for more dense and mixed-use development along with supporting infrastructure, services, and transportation networks.

The county's growth management policy was first established with the 1971 Comprehensive Plan.

And related to community facilities, the policy supports efficient and cost effective infrastructure networks and services such as public water and sewer, libraries, public schools, and emergency services from fire rescue and police.

There is substantial overlap between the community facilities chapter and other chapter topics such as transportation, land use, environmental stewardship, housing, and parks and recreation.

The chapter features four primary goals which include public facilities infrastructure and services, renewable energy, communications and utilities, and community resilience.

The draft language for the goals and objectives are included in Attachment A within your packets, and this language is captured in the following slides.

I will skip past these slides, but I'm happy to return to any of these slides for reference if you want to review the specific language during the discussion.

So the updated growth management policy will carry forward county equity and climate action priorities in accordance with framework for an equitable and resilient future.

We'll also carry forward the established rural area and development area priorities.

as well as promote efficient use of county resources with a combination of protecting essential elements of the rural area, ag and forestry resources, land preservation and conservation, water supply resources, natural resources, and historic scenic and cultural resources.

The development area will be designated for a variety of land uses, facilities, and services to support county's future growth with an emphasis on achieving density and high-quality design as well as new and infill development.

Related to the growth management plan is the topic of future development areas expansion.

Before I get into this topic, I just wanted to add for the sake of clarity that staff is not proposing an expansion of the development areas at this time, nor are we seeking guidance from the board on whether to pursue that at this time.

This topic, however, has been broached previously during our planning toolkits discussion, which is a way to guide land use and transportation.

So our feedback from the Planning Commission and the Board during that year, earlier in the year, was to provide guidance on expansion criteria and

to help guide future decisions about when future expansion may occur as directed by the land use build-out analysis to determine remaining capacity within development areas.

The existing plan does not provide extensive guidance on how and where future expansion may occur.

Potential factors for guidance may include infrastructure needs, environmental areas to protect, water supply, and public services.

Additionally, there is a need to coordinate with service providers regarding long-term plans, including infrastructure for public water and sewer.

The topic of expansion, excuse me, here we go.

Establishing a clear expansion criteria is a common practice used by many jurisdictions within their comprehensive plans to avoid premature expansion, to coordinate efficient infrastructure, and avoid development sprawl.

The criteria drafted includes 10 different criteria points.

Transportation would be evaluated for level of service, safety, and multimodal network.

Public schools would entail analysis of current and projected capacity and identified school sites.

Public water and sewer provision requires coordination with ACSA and RWSA providers and consideration of existing capacity.

Other evaluation includes community facilities and service provisions such as fire, rescue, and public.

and police response, as well as public buildings such as libraries and community centers.

Environmental stewardship involves identifying environmental features to protect and analysis of the existing development areas boundary.

Density, building form and redevelopment would entail analysis of the density achieved and the inclusion of mixed uses and establishing activity centers.

Water supply watersheds involve protecting watersheds and avoiding areas with limited existing development as well as well in septic issues.

Land use and expected development form entails meeting community design guidelines in locations adjacent to the existing development area and city boundaries.

Parks and recreation evaluation involves existing parks, trails, and amenities as well as future plans.

and last would be the anticipated impacts to adjacent and nearby existing development and neighborhoods as well as maintaining a hard edge to the development area boundaries.

Our discussion with the Planning Commission included coordination, feedback on coordination with ACSA and RWSA on provision of public water sewer, as well as considering an objective to consider nature as an infrastructure consideration.

and also utilizing a wildlife risk overlay in the plan, establishing more community centers within the development areas and establishing criteria for potential development areas, expansion to guide future decisions.

And they also suggested that we include a wildfire risk overlay.

So that brings us to our questions.

The specific questions we'd like the Board to consider are whether the plan should recommend public water and sewer for legacy zoning areas with non-rural area zoning adjacent to the development areas.

So these are areas that already have different types of zoning other than rural zoning that you see throughout the rural area.

So a couple examples of these are the areas along Hunter Way, adjacent to 250 east of the development areas.

which is an area that we previously discussed in relation to rural interstate interchanges.

Another area would be the portion between Western Albemarle High School and Nancy Lumber along Route 250 West.

Additionally,

Additionally, should we consider water and sewer provision to areas that are adjacent to the development area that have failing septic so that we can address health safety needs as well as protect water quality?

And then the second question is regarding expansion criteria.

Should we continue to develop a policy to guide potential future expansion of the development areas and are there factors that should be added or changed?

Thank you.

We'll go through our order.

Thank you.

just to not go down the first rabbit hole that comes along.

Yes, absolutely.

Well, I'll wait and do that later.

Others may have a different view, but it sure would be helpful to go through goal by goal instead of having all 10 all at once, because it was very confusing.

Doing that.

No.

We have a really good process already.

When there is an adjacent property that has the proper health failures, that has been in existence, I think, since ACSA was founded.

And so, especially in the area, the example you gave between Western Albemarle and Yancy Mills, the south of 250 drains directly into the drinking water supply.

So that should come off the list.

If you're giving credibility to the criteria you've already given to protect the watershed, then that area would not qualify.

We've had lots of turmoil over the last 30 years, but certainly the last 16 years about uses there that wanted to have public water provided.

but they have always been rural area property and were purchased knowing that and had those uses need to be defined to what the services are available.

So I am personally happy with the current way that we look at the health expansion.

Okay, but they're anything that's of a distance.

would be a terrible burden for the ratepayers, the whole rest of the taxpayers, if we're thinking that we're going to be running water out to something that people purchased knowing that they were on their own, basically.

I'm trying to emphasize how important that is that we not take away that ownership responsibility.

I would say no on the second one right now, because the more people think that they can always move on to the next green field,

the less they're going to be interested in providing the infill that we need to provide the growth area success.

And certainly as far as providing services to an even greater geography size, we haven't solved our infrastructure needs in the current growth area.

So I'm not interested in going bigger.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Holt.

Regarding number one,

I would say no.

However, with the caveat that I want to be made aware of, or I think the board should be made aware of, any public health safety needs.

So should that arise, I mean, we certainly need to know about that.

And maybe that's small, maybe it's large, maybe it's medium-sized.

but I think that's something we need to be aware of but not looking to recommend public water and sewer along 250 East.

Small portion, perhaps, depending on, once again, public health and safety needs.

If that answers your question.

And number two,

not in favor at this time.

I've always said we should go higher and denser in the development areas and I'm not sure we're ready to name factors.

I think once you name factors then that's going to spur the

Investors and everything all over the place.

And they're going to start investing because they're going to anticipate that this is a growth area.

I mean, maybe people can figure it out already.

I don't know.

But I would not be in favor of guiding potential future expansion of the development areas by here's the criteria.

I think we all kind of know what the criteria is.

So without explicitly stating it,

So those are my few viewpoints.

Well, I'm going to go through all my stuff, or we're going to do another round.

We're going to do another round.

We will definitely do another round.

You just want me to do these two questions before I start spouting off.

We will do another round.

What is the difference on question one than from what we're doing now?

So right now, we don't

have mentioned of extending water and sewer to these certain legacy areas where there's generally commercial activity occurring.

So that area between 250 and 64 east of town, you have some industrial businesses, some commercial businesses out there.

So do we

provide recommendation for extending water sewer to those areas, areas like that where there could be further economic drivers.

And then the second part of that is the areas with failed water in septic.

So whether or not it's in the comp plan or not, if they have a failing issue and it's a public or health and safety issue, it's coming to us to get decided on.

So I guess why are, I'm asking what's the purpose of elevating this to the comp plan?

To the second point, to your first point you're saying, well we just go ahead whether there's no public health or safety anyway, we're just saying that since this activity is out there,

We think it's worth at least considering.

And to guide the substantial investment in water and sewer, we think it would help to have some visibility within the comprehensive plan if that's an intention of the Board.

mostly just moral support, David Menisch, Development Process Manager.

I think this is reflective of a decision that you recently also made in the Hunters Hall area where you granted water service for fire suppression for a warehouse that was becoming larger.

So the somewhat difference from what we do now is there has to be a documented health or safety issue.

We felt like these properties that have

Commercial Industrial Zoning that have by-right uses that could be fairly intensive.

Things like fire suppression would be a proactive way to provide for safety.

Also, water being sort of a less catalyst for growth, but addressing things that could be uses that are generated by higher employment.

where, by right, these properties could develop into fairly intensive uses.

It would be better to provide those services to these, just these zone properties.

So it was sort of a more anticipating, better treatment of more intensive development in these zone areas.

Kind of treating them like we otherwise treat similar zone properties in our development areas.

Sewer is the one that's the more greater catalyst for growth.

and that one we would probably want to be a little more careful about.

Thank you.

But whether or not it's in the comp plan or not, we're going to address these issues as they come up on the property.

You have that option under the current policy, yeah.

Got it.

Let me think on that first question while I go to the second one.

Should the AC 40, the second, the development area, I mean, I've said publicly that this is the third rail in Albemarle County politics, but why we're afraid to have the conversation, I don't know.

At some point,

You know, and we all, I've heard myself say, sorry not to listen to myself when I'm talking, but I've heard others say that, you know, well, it's not going to be filled for 10 years or 20 years or 50 years, speaking of the development area.

So we shouldn't really have to have the conversation about potential expansion.

But what we probably need to do is, in the discussion, let's us get there, is define what do we say is 100% filled?

Like the last time we had this conversation a few weeks ago, we anticipated 20 years, I think, based on anticipated units being put in.

But that's assuming we approved at the full density levels, and if we don't, does that change the timeline?

So if 20 years is assuming max density, and we're not approved, we're proven 58% of that density level, then 20 years isn't the right number.

So at some point, this Board needs to say we need to have the conversation.

I'm not saying that the expansion of the development area is inevitable.

What is inevitable, as I've said this before, is the Board has to have the conversation, and this is the planning document in order to do that.

If we're identifying the potential areas, I don't see what the harm is in that, but I think more important, or the first part of the conversation, is saying what is

What is the goalpost of saying that the threshold's been met that now requires the expansion of the development area or the growth area?

And we probably, I think with that conversation, it's worth having.

So this came up in my town hall meeting for the budget talking about some density in the development area and protection of the rural area, and in no way shape or form about being favored in expanding the development area.

but the Rideau Road small area plan and talking about that's where we've approved some height and some density but we can't flip a switch and make that happen.

The redevelopment has to happen and if we calculate all those units in maybe that delays the expansion growth area etc.

So I think we're

I think it's okay to have the conversation without then all of a sudden supervisors and I mean, you know, some will probably say that because I uttered these words today that I'm in favor of expanding the development area and that's why it's the third rail of Albemarle County politics and why people that are for expansion of the development area and who at least want the discussion to happen say that there's no political will on the board to do it.

You know, if you just don't want to expand the development area, then we say so.

That's the easy phrase to utter as a supervisor in Albemarle County, right?

That's easy.

But is it good planning?

And as somebody that represents a good portion of the development area, I, for one, need to stop saying and looking at my constituents in the eye and saying, oh, well, that's 20 or 30 years down the road.

Because I don't know.

how far down the road it is.

And if we never talk about it, then I've just got my head in the sand about when it may actually occur.

And if it comes up on me faster than I realize, Neil was prognosticating that a few of us might still be here in 29, sitting at this dais.

Well, if we are, and it comes up on us and we're not ready for it, then we didn't do our job as supervisors to plan for it in the document that's meant for the planet.

So I'm open to having the discussion about it.

Before getting to areas that I would say, let's identify the areas and all of that, I think there is worthwhile discussion that has to happen that is both prudent and responsible for both sides of the issue, whether you're for or against the expansion, to at least go, well, we've identified 5%.

Now let's define what the goalpost is that we can all agree on, hey, we've maxed out.

So I don't know the answer to that question.

I'm interested in trying to determine what it is.

For the first one,

I mean, I get why folks get nervous when we put water and sewer outside of the development areas because that's like opening the door to the future development.

It seems like this isn't very much a change in process, maybe a change in our view of saying use that's already existing could be allowed to go there, but if the people that are doing the use don't feel they need it, then I don't know that I'm ready to just say we have to put it in.

So I think on that one, I'm actually okay with saying

if a public health or safety issue comes up, that's when we need to address it.

Because I don't see us going out and just going, all right, let's recommend that we're going to move this water out there for some other reason.

Thank you.

Is there a reason why that?

OK.

Previous slide?

Which slide is that?

Yeah.

So I can remember what I'm talking about.

This first question is, I also had a hard time really disentangling it from our current practice and policy.

It seems like a public health and safety need is the kind of thing that prompts action even under the current paradigm.

Also, am I correct?

And it seems like this feels intrinsically tied up in another thing that we discussed earlier in the comprehensive plan around rural interchanges.

Yes, there's substantial overlap.

and if I'm recalling, I remember what the community feedback was generally not tremendously fond of rural interchanges.

It was maybe the rural land use type that had the lowest appetite.

I don't remember exactly where we landed as a body on rural interchanges.

I don't think we really touched much in that concerned chapter on what was proposed.

I'm making sure that a decision we take on this question also doesn't interfere with previous board decisions.

There was not unanimous feedback on that subject, but what we heard from the Planning Commission and the Board was that

There was some appetite for utilizing small area plans in the future at those locations to determine appropriate use and the scale of use.

And that would also entail exploring infrastructure.

So this subject of water sewer is part of that conversation and it's being broached here again for that reason.

I appreciate that recap.

That feels like something we would have said.

Something that is

and, um, with that being the case, it seems like we would be significantly curtailing any kind of small area plan that we could execute any kind of community-led development decisions or planning process that we might contribute to.

and Diantha McKeel.

Subsequent Small Area Plan, and I would vote in favor of this question in order to not curtail future discussions, if that follows.

On the second question, yeah, this is a spicy one.

This is kind of the central fulcrum of Albemarle County politics.

I would generally agree with the way that Supervisor Gallway framed it.

At some point we need to actually have a discussion, and this isn't even identifying an area.

This is identifying the criteria for identifying an area.

This is acknowledging in the comprehensive plan that we recognize the problem.

And it also lets us have a more substantive conversation.

about what that process and what identification is going to look like, which I think is important, because when I think about the possibility, the specter of expanding the development area, my concerns are always in the details specifically, because I think once you, at some point, we are going to be talking about specific discrete square miles and acres.

and that is a central part of the concept and that is what I think makes maybe the specter, the boogeyman of this, disintegrate a little bit when we can actually hold in our hand what even we're talking about.

I also have personally, like, a lot of concerns, when I think of my concerns about the development area and its expansion, there are things that we can't even talk about unless we get past this first stage, right?

Like, I'm concerned about how we are going to manage the land use map in those areas and how long in advance those decisions are going to be made available, right?

The primary public benefit that could be derived, or what I see as one of the primary public benefits, is

and so on.

and that is going to be very complicated when we think about when we're zoning that and what we're zoning that.

Are we going to try and, you know, to borrow a mentor of mine, Rich Shragger's favorite phrase?

Are we trying to capture mobile capital by deliberately zoning it under our intended use?

That is a very realistic thing under our current plan and the direction it seems like our housing team is going.

that's an important part of how we're going to fund affordable housing development.

We're zoning it under capturing fees in lieu, transitioning that into subsidies elsewhere, or we're going to try and zone it at a high level of density in a way that immediately allows massive by right explosive development and depending on when we advertise that potentially spikes up land value.

These are like the conversations that we need to be having around this and frankly we can't have any of these conversations that actually

to shape what it means and inform whether or not we're in favor or against expansion of the development area unless we take the very first step of identifying the criteria of when we think it is prudent to expand it, talking about the criteria for what expansion would even look like.

So I think it's a necessary, albeit politically toxic, it's a necessary step that has to be included in the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Supervisor McKeel.

I do agree with what Mike and Ned have said, just basically to start off.

I do agree.

But let me go to the first bullet.

A little bit different take on this, perhaps, just because of my struggles in my district, in the very urban area that is rural.

and so I'm thinking about this in a different way.

Now, you're talking commercial here.

I'm looking at it from the viewpoint of how do we marry climate action and affordable housing?

to through the lens of failing septic systems and protecting our groundwater.

We know that failing septic systems are not what we need, what we want.

And in these older areas, in many of the older areas, we have failing septic systems.

Certainly we have them even in the development area, but I'm talking right now about the rural area.

So if I look at this, I am immediately thinking to myself, so I have an affordable housing complex in my district that is not very far from the jurisdictional area.

It's in the urban ring.

It is an affordable housing complex that we do not want to lose.

How do we marry that?

Being able to save affordable housing, existing affordable housing, because if we don't help that complex, I fear that it's going to be sold.

and we're going to end up with more expensive housing there and we will lose the affordable housing that we have there that has really benefited multiple, multiple families over the years.

Matter of fact, back in the 70s, I lived there.

So we're talking about Lambs Road as an example.

So I'm looking at maybe something that

While these examples are fine, and I will say I'm taking them to be just examples, right?

But I would suggest another example of looking at climate change, failing septic systems.

The area that I'm talking about is in the watershed.

The development area line was put there 30 years ago because it was a watershed.

So how do we get specific areas, identify areas like that that will support our, continue to support affordable housing that's existing?

Help with the climate change initiatives that we have about protecting our groundwater.

and protecting water.

But I'm really talking about septic.

I'm not talking about bringing in water.

I'm talking about public sewers, what I'm talking about.

I don't know if you have any thoughts on that at all.

But that's one of the things that I'm thinking about when we're looking at this first bullet.

I don't know how many other areas we have in the county that are like that.

Maybe that's the only one.

I have no idea.

but we're talking about an area that's right off Hydraulic Road and Georgetown Road, right down the road from a high school in the rural area that has affordable housing that we're liable to lose and is in a watershed

So, and I'm not even asking for that whole area to be part of the, I just want to say can we look selectively at certain areas that I've been told that that's not in the jurisdictional area because it's too far.

Here comes David.

Well just real quickly so you understand the current policy because I think it relates to this first question.

For that example, the current policy for rural areas, for

providing jurisdictional areas, properties in the jurisdictional area is that when they're in the rural area there has to be a documented health or safety issue which applies to that site and it has to be adjacent to an existing facility.

The comprehensive plan for the years has never identified a distance.

That is a policy that the Board amendments to the jurisdictional area are approved by the Board.

That's a policy to guide your decisions.

and so on.

the Board approved extension there given those circumstances.

So I think each and every case you look at that standard or that circumstance, excuse me, and apply what makes sense from that guidance.

So there is the potential in any case we would guide you to be consistent and so that you don't create

Presidents that cause our county attorney problems, I guess.

But you can make those exceptions.

I don't believe you can condition your agreement to provide that service.

So it's a decision purely to provide that service.

But under the current policy, you have the discretion to apply those standards.

and there are a couple of examples where they haven't met that proximity issue.

And that standard is based on the fact that what is guiding control of that land is the rural area zoning.

So when you provide that service, there is some limit to what can happen to that property when you provide that service.

The difference in these sites that we were looking for, that's the basis for your first question to bring it back to that question is,

Those properties have zoning that's not rural area that doesn't restrict activity to a much lower level on those private systems.

You could have pretty intensive activity on those private systems.

Right, right.

and you might have also seen I think it's objective 1.5 and this section also speaks to studying impacts of septic systems in the rural area and it's trying to get at that bigger picture of that we do have subdivisions that are 40, 50, 60 years old in the rural area.

and how do we address that?

Yeah, because I think Yancey area has a problem with some failing septic systems right now.

I mean, you could go through it.

I understand.

Because we have lots of older areas.

Okay, so thinking though about, I'm going to go back to my, trying to get, looking at it a little differently in marrying climate change, protecting groundwater, in watersheds, affordable housing, how we get at that.

and David seems to think we've got that.

Maybe, I don't know.

It's okay.

So go back to your slide with the bullets.

Yeah, yeah.

And I probably have said enough about septic and valence septic systems and public sewer.

Regarding development area expansion criteria, I agree we have had, anytime it's even mentioned

People in the

and it seems like to me, anytime you've done something for that long, it's worth taking a look at again.

Doesn't mean you're going to change everything, but there may be some tweaks that are needed, there may be some changes that are needed.

I don't know, but I am certainly willing to have that discussion if we can figure out how to do it.

because it does seem to be very upsetting for many people in our community.

When we're talking about the expansion criteria,

There is one that we've talked, I think you mentioned schools, roads, Albemarle County Service Authority, Rivanna, you know, all those issues.

I would add population as related to the development area and the magisterial districts.

I think that's a criteria that would be worthy of looking at.

because we're talking 20 years, 30 years, I don't know how long, but I think that it would be an interesting criteria to look at.

And I think that's the only criteria that I would add.

And with that, I'm going to stop.

Yeah.

Population, so that's people population, right?

As related to the development area and the magisterial districts.

I think that could be very informative.

I don't know where it would lead, but I think it's a piece of information we should have for the future, not for now, but for the future, because we're talking 20 years, lots of ways, but I agree wholeheartedly with Ned, and Mike, if we don't start talking about these things, it's not good planning to just say, I'm not going to ever talk about it.

We've got to have those discussions, and somehow or another, plan at least

as best we can for the future.

Thank you.

I just wanted to add a couple points of clarification related to some of the things you all have said.

Just to recap, the Planning Commission generally supported exploring this criteria, but they did not want to include any mapping at this time to avoid land speculation.

And Mr. Gallaway, per your

Mention of the land use buildout report.

That included both high and low projections.

So even if we continue at the current density, that study currently says that we do have capacity

and so on.

However, of course, if the county starts approving rezoning at a higher density, obviously, it's going to take longer to fill that area.

And then another thing is that the expansion criteria doesn't mean that

leads to yes decisions.

It works on both sides of the coin.

He called me out.

I don't disagree, and in fact, defining what a full development area is can help you protect your rural area.

So I understand.

We just have to get over the fear of having the conversation.

if it's height and units and all of that.

Okay, great, let's do it.

But, you know, so I appreciate you pointing that out because I don't disagree with that.

And I get why defining or identifying areas can be problematic, which is why I'm not ready to go there.

So I'm going to give you some of my thoughts and then we'll see if we've got that part before we go back around again.

And I'll jump to number two first since we were just on that.

It does seem that

I'm one of those who don't want to expand the development areas, but I recognize that this is a question of criteria, and the criteria kind of cut both ways.

So I had discussions in the past about how we best defend our decisions, and sometimes in defending our decisions we're in a better position if we have criteria that say, you know, until

and so on.

If these criteria or these parameters are reality, then we are justified in not extending the development area.

So the criteria can actually work to help protect, which is I think one of your points about how the criteria could work.

It's a protection for the development area.

So in that sense, I don't have a lot of problems with that.

I do say that, you know, the goalposts are going to be difficult because when you say, what is 100% filled?

you know the city of Charlottesville is also right now looking at how they can grow and they're landlocked so they're not going to expand the development area they're just simply using other tools and so that is something that we're always going to have available to some extent as well which brings me to kind of response to point made which is that some of our development area decisions are based on geography as well and sometimes it may be that because of that geography with the current

Magisterial District, political boundaries, that it really isn't a question of whether the Magisterial District itself doesn't have enough development area, but whether the lines are drawn in a way that make our Magisterial Districts comparable in how much development area versus how much rural area.

I would never want to suggest, well, we've got these ragged mountains here.

between 29 and 64, they're right next up to the city, but Samuel Miller doesn't have enough development area, so we have to develop that.

I think that's the wrong way to look at it.

We need to look at it in terms of we can change the political boundaries, but we can't change the geography of the county, and there are going to be some areas that are possibly

the areas that might work if the development areas were to be expanded and other areas where I think it would be very difficult and problematic to consider that.

But again, I want to be able to defend our decisions and I sort of see the idea of having that discussion as helping us to defend the decisions that we're making.

then I want to jump back to number one, the first question and I'm still not sure if I'm really hearing a lot of difference because we do have a process for allowing these areas to be considered for water and sewer.

I am a little concerned about the definition of a failing septic or failing water because depending upon how I currently use

My property, I can basically force the septic to fail.

Now, I'm not suggesting that that's necessarily going to happen in my case, but depending upon the use of the property, you could find yourself saying, well, you know, if we want to continue to use this way, then the septic is never going to be able to keep up with it.

And I don't want to use that tool.

I don't want that tool of their feeling to be used as a way to say, well, then we have to

Providence Service, which then allows for more development in that sense.

That said, I fully agree with Supervisor McKeel when it comes to an existing property like an apartment complex, whether or not it's affordable housing, it's housing, and it's in a situation where we're not really controlling that usage and we see that it's failing.

We need to be able to find ways to fix that, but can we fix that without going through the comp plan?

I'm a little nervous, so I'm leaning towards no as far as putting it directly into the comp plan, though I do want to make sure that we address those issues and have the procedures set so that we can address those issues as they arise.

Now, that said, I'm distinctly sensing that of the board we have a very much a mix about whether this comp plan recommends water sewer for some legacy zoning and rural adjacent areas to address public health and safety needs.

And I don't know if you've gotten what you need on that first question.

Okay.

And then the second question, I also sense a distinct difference of views as to how much we can put in with respect to criteria, although I do think that, you know, it may depend on how you phrase those criteria, whether it's

Seen as a permissive step or as a firm criteria where, unless this happens,

and we're not looking to expand the development area.

I'm looking around because we're going to go back through our order and discuss this generally if that's all right with you.

But I want to make sure that you feel comfortable with our answers here.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Just a couple of notes I wrote down as we went along because the first thing I wrote was near as different than adjacent.

Our current very simple process is adjacency, but then as David reminded us, there's been these various occasions which I had until now forgotten about that had allowed other things to happen.

also want to make sure we have in the record that Virginia Department of Health has tremendous funding availability.

It's seasonal, but anyway, for repair of septic systems and also the federal government has huge grant opportunities for federal systems, so of course for water safety systems.

So we want to make sure that we're not ignoring those opportunities for any of the homeowners.

Places, certainly when you have a multi-family situation, that's almost impossible, I think, to manage with a septic system anyway.

So those, I guess, are truly very old legacy system things that need to be dealt with.

The slippery slope category is everything is adjacent to something.

It continues growing, growing, growing, and all of a sudden it's bigger.

But the service authority would have the responsibility for those decisions.

We may give them the, say, we're supportive of it from a complaint point of view, but they have to carry that out.

And the landowner, I understand, would have to bear the cost.

That's not something where the taxpayers bear the cost and, you know, run stuff down there for a business, particularly they have to be providing that.

Affordability question, someone raised about how if we expand the growth area, it will make it easier for things to be affordable.

But unfortunately, I think that even back as far as the 80s, there was not an overwhelming effort on the part of the business community to build affordable housing, period.

I mean, I think Earleysville Forest was the last one, 200 units in the woods, and they started out at 40,000, which was great.

and now they're selling for $250,000 and $300,000 and they're a very nice neighborhood, but the way the private sector works and their financing works, they're going from the top of the market and unless we're doing something differently, then I don't see that changing.

Regarding the second bullet, we talked about this a couple of times ago, I think it would be very successful to separate the growth management discussion and resolution of that issue out of the comp plan and to

have its own agenda and its own work session and its own deliberation and not try to cram it into a 15-minute discussion as part of many, many other things that we're talking about.

And I'm all in for that.

I'm just not in for something where we give a short shrift and then we say, sure, sure, why not?

So I very much would like to put that back on the table again.

There also over the last 20 years have been several changes to the growth area, one being in Crozet, where area on the south side of the Crozet growth area was added.

No, removed because of its adjacency to the Meacham's River.

And our area on the north end was added in right along 240.

And so those kinds of changes can be done and can, as can changes, modifications to the complaint when necessary.

So those have been done.

The CMA process has happened quite a lot just in the last few years.

So I think that we shouldn't think that just because we adopt something now that it's written in stone,

not in disagreement with what Supervisor Gallaway said as far as discussion.

I think this board does need to have a discussion and in-depth discussion whether or not it goes what our decisions are.

I don't know.

but I think it's always good to get everything, the facts out there to have a discussion, possibilities.

Having said that, I feel comfortable that with what we're doing, we can address public health safety needs with what we have now.

Key West is a good example and when you say that was about a mile from

Water, and Sewer Hookup, my understanding is that, is the mile, is that considered close, distant, you know, whatever, because I'm thinking about what Supervisor McKeel said about her affordable housing unit, that I don't know how far that was from the water sewer hookup, and I don't know Key West, would that be considered a long distance, a mile?

I would think so.

and yet we did it, we addressed that issue.

And so I was, I'm very happy about that and I think that's something we can continue to do.

I think, I think it's a slippery slope to go right now anyway for expansion.

I think people, Albemarle I think will, frankly, this is my opinion, always be on the expensive side, it's gonna be more expensive than the surrounding counties.

and expanding it.

I don't know how much that's going to help, but going higher and denser, as I've always stated before, I'm in favor of, to address the issues that we do have.

And I think it's incumbent upon this board to stop, to start maximizing

The Housing, I think that's something, maybe a discussion or that's something we can do and agree to have more than 58% affordable housing on a development project.

I think that's something that we can, as a board, can do, frankly, now.

A policy to guide potential future expansion.

I'm not in favor of that.

And I think you mentioned at the beginning, you said you're not recommending any changes at this point to the comp plan in that area, right?

Okay.

And, but I like the discussion.

I think it's time to have a discussion about all this.

What we want to do, what's going to be the future.

that'll probably entail a few workshops, maybe more, or retreat, I don't know.

Supervisor Callaghan, remind you, this is a chance to go through any of this chapter.

Never mind.

I'll come back again then.

I thought we would.

This, I guess it starts on page three, so you go to, this would be public water and sewer, I don't know if you get slides on this or not.

Yeah.

So in here, not that I have, and it seems like one of these is specific to the questions you raise, so you'll be addressing that.

I feel like in here somewhere we need to have, and this issue is becoming more and more on my radar and concerning to me, we're mapping all of the piping, and I'm thinking specifically development area now, but we're mapping all of the piping infrastructure where stormwater from sites is coming out.

We're also got the natural channels that are not piped or underground mapped, so we know where those are at.

The capacity of those, and I'm thinking specifically the channels, the open channels, I feel like we need, from a planning perspective or a big picture perspective, need to get at that.

Whether that's encouraged, I don't know what a subjective objective or goal is, but

It's along the lines of what we've already got underway by mapping the piping.

Like, let's find where the pipes are degraded or in need of repair, understand what the inventory is, for lack of a better word.

But you take Rio Hill and where all that water flows, whether they have facilities or not, so whether it just freely leaves the site or gets captured and then released under a certain percentage,

at some point it's going to hit the natural channels and my concern are the downstream impacts from upstream responsibility.

The folks downstream are dealing with issues because of increased flow and volume that this is where I've talked before about litter, their own property being undermined whether it's water property or land property depending on the channel.

and they are realizing the burden, the cost to deal with the negative impact when it's an upstream issue.

So this is something I think is going to be, in my opinion, is a growing, growing concern and priority in the development area that just, I've said to folks in my CAC and others, it just frankly hasn't been on my radar until the last few years,

to think to ask questions like that when developments have come forward specifically at the top of Rio Hill as they flow wherever they're going.

So this is response to something that I'm seeing and others I'm sure in the rural area and such with the volume of water and what you're seeing.

It's a very similar issue, but it's a little different because it's being piped and we actually have the ability to maybe control the capacity going into those channels, especially if they're going through a facility.

So I'd like to see something or some thought or effort at the COMP plan level that says we're mindful of that.

We understand that it's a public issue and what are we going to do?

And I don't have the answers for that.

My guess is this ends up under the umbrella of

Public Works Department eventually, another item as we continue to urbanize to deal with and support.

So I'm starting to think, let's think that through of how this water flow through man-built things that funnel to natural things and then what that does to properties as it goes through a very tight area.

I hope that made sense.

The emergency, there was an emergency, I didn't note the pay, oh, I guess it's page 4, 1.12.

Emergency services provide high quality and responsive emergency services that adapt to changing communities' emerging best practices.

My note is that, and I may have to wait to see the details of the actions, but is this, is there a staffing level objectives here based on our

our population.

When we talk budget, often ask, well, where we staffed well for police, fire, rescue relative to our population and, you know, the population grows, it's going to put more and more demand.

As we urbanize, it puts more and more demand there.

So when I see changing community needs and emerging best practices, I get the best practices part.

But I wonder, is the board thinking of it, thinking of staffing,

from what this is trying to get at as an objective versus going what we can afford.

And I think the comp plan is the place to say this is the objective and based on our population, this is really where we need to be and based on the nature of our population and where they live, this is where they need to be, which is why one additional police officer a year is not going to cut it in the budget or fire or, you know, pick your

Pick Your Service.

Oh, I was just, so this is one where I'm curious about how this, we had a lot of talk about resiliency centers at a different, I think that was during the Crossroad communities, but like why is resiliency, it says resilient community, this seems to be a great place to talk about resiliency centers.

or at least have it linked up.

So I'm just calling that out, that maybe it is or maybe it will be, but it seems like this.

We were speaking specifically about rural area and rural need and the potential for these type of centers in a cross-route community.

So I understand the context of that conversation, but that doesn't mean we don't need resilience centers throughout the whole county.

And this seems like a place where that could be addressed since it has been discussed in other spots.

and then on page 16, you probably don't have this on a slide because this was not really under goals.

This is under police.

There was a statement in their future needs for the police department could include training facilities and strategically located smaller offices.

I agree, so I'm calling out that I do agree with that.

I guess it hasn't been discussed for a long time.

I don't recall the board.

I think maybe before I was on this board there might have been talk at one point about a fire training facility, a regional that could be housed in Albemarle, but that can be a revenue generator in some ways to offset costs.

So I'm just calling this out as, yeah, strategically located smaller offices agree.

The training facility conversation

Not only does it help us offset costs for not having to send people outside of our area, but bringing other people in to train could be something to generate revenue.

I would be behind an effort like that, so I'm just again wanting to underline or highlight it or start.

Thanks.

I'm going to begin with revisiting two hobby horses from previous sections because they emerge in a lot of different chapters.

First, a very easy one.

Four decimal three.

You're already there.

I've mentioned this before, but this talks about prioritizing access for census tracts that have higher social vulnerability indexes.

Great.

I love that.

track level data is also going to be insufficient given our population density.

I am in the same tract personally and as is even nicer communities like Lake Renovia is in the same tract as Eagle's Landing and Southwood currently.

and so on.

Prudent to have something more granular if we were going to do that.

And I know, generally, since this track is the most granular we can get, but we would need to figure out a different alternative there, I think.

Okay.

Just because I don't know that it's workable.

And the other thing is the use of the word equitable.

This is a popular thing.

It's almost like an invocation.

Like, oh, if I say equitable at the beginning of the sentence, then I'm ensuring that everything I'm doing is good.

That everything I'm doing will be supported by my entirely Democrat panel board of supervisors.

And then I don't think it is actually being articulated or supported by many, most of the objectives.

1.5, as was already mentioned, has a concrete, I would say, actionable equity element that is being scrutinized.

But it does not talk about, in any other objectives, frameworks that could be used that incorporate equity concerns, either like social vulnerability, we've talked about that, which is a very all-encompassing index, household median incomes, racial disparities.

These aren't frameworks that are really being discussed or addressed.

there's also other like equities generally I would say handled on a policy level at local government in two ways right like through implementing equity conscious frameworks which is what I was just talking about and also through you know affirmative equity solutions like we have in

actually that's a bad example, but like proactively including goals that say you will deliver X type of services based on known disparities.

None of those leap out at me in here.

So if we're going to say that we want an equitable framework, granted this is not maybe the case point, water and sewer access, but if we're going to say we want an equitable framework, I would like to see actual concrete objectives that speak to that, things that propose and execute an equity conscious framework, things that of decision making and process, and things that propose and execute on an equity reducing or an equity increasing, a disparity combating

and a series of services, things like direct services to specifically targeted populations.

I don't see those identified.

And so either we're accepting that we're not engaging equity as a serious element, or we need to go back and revisit how we need to incorporate an equity lens throughout this.

That's a very big picture thing, but it is a frustration of mine.

And if you think that is an unfair characterization of it, I'd invite like any

any closer look at a section that you might want to drag me to.

We had a discussion from the public, thank you, about objective 2.1 and I do want to support just PEC's notice of this right from a very specific way or a very technical way.

Any land can be timbered.

If I am preparing land to lease land for a solar project, I can immediately establish this criteria by cutting down all the trees.

It is tempered.

It seems like a relatively simple thing to just replace that criteria.

with a consideration of soil quality or regenerative capacity slash regenerative timelines.

I think regenerative timeline is a very realistic thing.

Everything has a regenerative capacity if we are willing to look in the hundredth year.

But if it's going to take 20 years, then maybe that is a prudent criteria.

Also in generally goal two, right?

We have two discussions, two decimal two and two decimal three around utility solar, utility scale solar, which I think we all agree is desirable.

I am concerned that we don't have much discussion of the role and how to incentivize and enable community scale solar, which frankly seems more conducive to a lot of the things that we say are our concerns about utility scale solar, which is intrusiveness in the rural area.

Community Scale Solar's smaller footprint, and also I would suggest

does less to contribute to some of the broader macro concerns that some people invoke, right?

Community-scale solar does not go towards Loudon's bajillion megawatt data centers, which is a concern that people voice.

I don't want to be footing the bill for Loudon's bajillion dollar megawatt.

Anna Smiley, she sent us a helpful article.

Who sent the helpful article?

Someone.

That was specifically about this.

Community Scale Solar does not, to my understanding, connect into those distribution grids because of issues of its scale that eliminates that community concern.

We are not in our current draft solar ordinance talking about community scale solar and I think there is a place for that.

So I would encourage that to be something that is prioritized in the comprehensive plan so that we can at some point address that once we are maybe as part of our current solar ordinance, maybe as part of the next thing.

I do also just want to revisit, I realize we talked about, you asked for feedback on criteria related to the development area.

Now I've seen the 10 criteria of what we are looking for in future expansion areas.

If I'm correct, there's not, to my memory, a specific bulleted list of triggering criteria.

It's generally just based on land use, is that correct?

You're speaking of the current guidance?

Yes.

I would suggest if we're talking about criteria, I'm frankly less concerned about the criteria we're using for identifying available tracts or prospective regions.

And what I would be interested in is what criteria we're

using for a staff recommendation for the win, which I think we're all interested in, and specifically something I don't hear discussed

when I review this are the way that this, yes, land buildout will be a triggering thing, but also the way that land buildout and our current land usage is affecting market effects.

Is it that we can no longer realistically have some of the commercial amenities that people desire for place building, town building, because they are not market feasible anymore, which is true in some parts of the county, and would this be able to affect that?

is it implicating our equity lens because we have reached a point where we are no longer able to have developers have a market feasible solution to delivering housing or other amenities based on our current land use build out in the way that is influencing the supply side of land.

I think it is important that we consider that because in addition to just impacting the overall land use build out, the decision of how we're executing our land use build out is impacting the shape and texture of our community beyond that.

It's impacting the kind of people who can live here.

It's impacting the kind of amenities that we can have because we are dependent on what the market is willing to build out.

So I would appreciate, I guess, a more wholesome consideration.

of how the broader community and the broader market is impacted, not just have we finished getting to whatever the number we had.

I think it's like 64% of land use that we say we're done.

There's like a magic number of like available land based on a variety of concerns.

So I would just add that.

I think the critique, I would like to see refined criteria

on the win question, not just on the where question, and those are key elements that I would identify.

How it impacts market availability of certain amenities, and specifically related to place making, and how it impacts overall equity concerns and the cost of living that are impacting residents.

I think that's all I have in this chapter.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Supervisor McKeel.

I'm just going to jump in real quickly to piggyback on what Ned said about the urban areas because certainly, and I imagine we all have these problems, but the water running downstream and certainly what I've seen is that it channels down

and sometimes it channels down and then goes into a pipe and then comes back out and channels again.

I mean it just, so we do, and I have multiple areas in my urban community that have concerns about that.

So looking at that would be really great, or mapping it somehow or another.

You know, a very interesting book I read a few years ago, it's called The Drowning of Matthews County.

Davis nodding his head.

He's read it, too.

And Matthews County drowned, essentially, because they didn't keep their channels clean.

It's a fascinating, you're not in your head too.

It's an interesting book to read.

I have a copy if anybody wants to borrow it.

But you've got to make sure those channels stay clean, right, for one thing.

But then we also have channels that are going downhill.

And in one case, I have water that's going downhill from an apartment complex.

on to a small residential area, which is a real challenge.

So I'm agreeing with Ned on that one.

And let me just run through here and take a look.

Again, this talks about existing older septic systems.

I'm not going to go into that again, but that is here.

I have a question because when we approved Center 2 at Almora High School, there was a lot of hula, certainly when it went to the Planning Commission.

about why it needed to be, why it had to be heard the way it was presented.

Special use permit, I don't really remember exactly, but the comments were that it's on a school property.

and why are we, because it's on a school property and they're asking for school, a school, but it's in the rural area and it had some concerns about, and I'm sorry, my brain is not computing exactly what that issue was.

David, you want to help me with this?

I didn't follow it super closely, but I think in zone rural area, the rural area height and setbacks were restrictions to where it could fit on the site.

So it had to be rezoned, I believe, to an urban zoning.

And it's in the rural area, so it's inconsistent with our compliance.

We are contemplating that.

You'll see moving forward in the plan possible ways to address that.

Because that was what I was hoping was, because it just seemed kind of wackadoodle.

that we were having to spend time with the Planning Commission and us on that issue.

So you're looking at that.

Thank you very much.

So I've seen the schools reminded me and I couldn't quite have my head wrapped around it.

I didn't go back to look.

Thank you.

Under solid waste management,

I've just jumped, this just jumped out at me.

Which we don't have currently.

as public providers.

I mean, we're not providing that right.

And so I was looking at that.

So is that being contemplated?

Is that what you all thought is that somewhere in the future we might need to, is that?

Sorry, David.

David, I'm giving you your exercise.

I just noticed curbside services.

I thought it was interesting.

That's good, as opposed to... Okay, that helps for clarification.

I was just curious, because that would be a big kahuna if we were talking about that.

Okay, all right.

Data centers, to just address what you were talking about.

And this is probably not relevant to our conversation, but I just saw a map of the data centers that are going into the state of Virginia, and it is shocking.

Well, but if you look at them all over the state of Virginia, it is shocking.

Exactly, I'm just saying.

Wind, I find interesting because we hardly ever talk about wind, and I think that would be something really interesting to put on our radar screen to talk about.

I understand that we're not out in the ocean where there's lots of wind, but we do have

Police and smaller offices

I think Ned may have mentioned that.

That's what I was getting at at one point when I inadvertently called them a substation.

And I was corrected very quickly that we didn't want substations.

But having said that, the police certainly are going to be needing, if you look up 29 North, certainly our population centers, and I don't know how you get at it, but I really like the idea of looking for the police.

We all have been told about how the police used to sit in the Yancy parking lot.

So it's not just up 29 North, but police sit in the Yancy parking lot because that's where they had connectivity, right?

Or a restaurant that they could utilize.

So thinking about it through the lens of providing the police with some small office space or something in the right places in the county, I think would be really appropriate.

and that might be all I had.

I think that's all I had in notes on right now.

Thank you.

Yeah, if we could just flip through the beginning of draft goals and objectives and I'll just make sure I hit my comments quickly if I can start back at this slide.

I don't know if it's 11 or something.

Go back on the slides.

So I just want to just confirm that when we talked in our first discussion of the two questions about allowing private central or looking for expanding the ACSA jurisdictional area that you know we have here this thing about serving crossroads communities of public water and sewer services not a viable option and I think

I'm really leery about, I guess we really haven't settled on what we mean by crossroads communities well enough to know that we would be, you know, looking at this, but I guess it's under private central water and sewer systems, so it depends on that use already coming in.

I just want to make sure I understood that when I looked at it.

I didn't have anything else on this slide.

We're the next.

If we could move to 13, I think.

No, 13 actually.

Okay, renewable energy.

Yeah, in this goal, I'm trusting that we have a big discussion coming eventually on the solar ordinance, where some of this is going to be discussed at greater length, and I hope that we can come back and revisit in some sense what comes out from that solar ordinance so that they're consistent.

I'm very worried that some of what's been drafted has got their environmental concerns, but there are also concerns that we haven't enabled the community to use solar or smaller scale solar by businesses that say, you know, we need it for our use, but it's larger than your

and so on.

I'm not a big fan of it, but we all actually use whether we realize it or not.

And, unfortunately, with that and with the continued growth of electric vehicles and things, what we have seen, and several supervisors have pointed to articles about this, that electricity needs

are going up faster than our growth of renewables.

Even though our growth of renewables has been pretty impressive, it needs to be more.

So that's something we'll have to consider as we look at our criteria for solar, and particularly by right solar, I think, because some of these projects just won't happen unless they don't have to go through all this process.

and that they don't happen, we're in trouble.

So let me go to Objective 3.6, where I notice here, proactively work with and support private communication electric and natural gas services and recognize immediately that natural gas services again, you know, going to be a

in consistent, to some extent, with our climate action policies, and I'm nervous about how that fits with our climate plan.

And I thoroughly agree with Supervisor Gallaway's comment that once we talk about health and safety, healthy, safe, and resilient community, that that cries out for cross-referencing resiliency centers.

It's the next slide, 16, but it's in the Gulf War.

And if we could, and I hesitate to open the can of worms for everyone, but if we could just look at slides, you went through quickly, slide 20, then 21 and 22.

I just want to look at them again.

Back to 20, please.

Expansion criteria direction.

Okay, then 21.

There's a lot in here and I'd like to take a look at the slides again and you may have additional comments when we start looking at 21, 22, etc.

for these expansion criteria factors and how they fit.

We kind of did a big picture overview on this and when I look at this, I'm not sure what all of these mean, how they're going to be interpreted.

There's just a lot of words without a lot of

Connectors to tell me what does it mean.

I hope that is helpful without getting us too far afield and going down those right now.

And those were my comments at this point, but I want to look around.

I'm sure there are additional comments.

I'm sorry, I missed my cue that it was time to go back and work off the gold list, so I do have a couple of things that I did not mention the last time.

We've done the objective 1.5.

One of the things that could be done tremendously to improve a lot of septic function is to require pump hounds, which many other communities have and provide

and so on.

The bailing facilities cost millions of dollars.

It's one of the largest things on, and Jim can talk to this more than I, on the CIP for the RSWA.

So that's not the sort of facility that can be strewn around the country, around the county.

That has to be located one separate place.

So I was just trying to clarify that equitably located would not necessarily go with that particular thing because it just can't be.

on goal two, the solar as well, that the consistent with the COMP plan is even more than the Climate Action Plan recommendations and to incorporate land use is important in the goal.

I'm very distressed by 2.1 as others have been about the intentional clearing or

intentional neglect of a property to make it look like it's distressed and therefore qualify for somehow to be considered a wasteland and therefore more suitable for a utility solar.

Half of our property is in various timber tracks and they are very active and beneficial for climate as well, so we do have to be

aware of that and protective of those things.

I would love to see some wording that prioritizes solar on the parking lots or rooftops and certified urban brownfields that can't be done anything else with in order to further that community.

One of the issues we're going to have to deal with at the legislature is to break the stranglehold which Dominion currently has on community solar, the ability, the $75 per month minimum

and so on.

there they couldn't even get the offset to be able to pay off the windmill because of the stranglehold that Dominion has.

So that we just need to make sure we're understanding what those risks are.

and I'm very much on page six, well let's see, 3.1.

I was very grateful actually for bullet three under the personal wireless actually.

I think that this paragraph is, the whole thing is pretty well put together but it does respect the other impacted resources.

3.3 complete rural fiber broadband.

is I think what's been the emphasis of the broadband authority and the BAAO office not to mix that up or with the other provisions because it is the fiber that can work the best for a long period of time.

Onto the page there.

Objective 3.6.

to work with communication electric gas, blah, blah, blah.

Others mentioned about the gas, I would agree with that.

But focusing on community centers and the rural area, buildings which already exist and agencies who could provide resilience hubs, I know that the Ruritans in White Hall were struggling trying to get resources in order to be able to upgrade their wireless or their, I mean, sorry, their ability to generate fiber

Broadband service strong enough so that people could come there during COVID and actually get service and to also improve the emergency response in these rural areas.

So I think that we have lots of potential partners out there.

Under goal 4.2, I don't know how we would ensure that private stone mortar management and flood infrastructure is properly maintained.

So that's just a question I will throw out there.

and so on.

this is in Community Health and Resilience is protecting the food growing land we have is incredibly important and increasing the capacity for the smaller truck garden folks who can make as much on one acre as I make with my whole herd every year it's a lot of work for them but the people who work at the farmers markets and take their things to the farmers markets or grow things for the food pantries are already happening now and I think if there's a vision that we could

to strengthen and encourage in some way that opportunity would be great.

Okay, I'm not going to take a lot more time with the input themes because there's really nothing I can do about this.

All right, I will, it's just when people say we should build libraries everywhere, I'm going, no, we already have a bookmobile, we can't build the 10 million dollar library all over the place.

So that's, I'll stop here.

Thank you.

Supervisor McKeel.

and the smallest one.

Yes, I just had three points.

I'm really concerned and I brought this up before regarding my VACO conference, regarding the data centers.

And what I was told at the VACO conference is that the data centers can come in by land, by right, and then once they do buy the land in a commercial office setting, the criteria that they can

it's by right they can build a data center.

So that's what I was told and they said the only way to counter that is to have something in the comprehensive plan.

So I guess what I'm looking for is I haven't seen anything in what's been proposed regarding data centers and how to say no to data centers if that's what the board decides to do, but something that can limit

having data centers here, because I think there might be consensus on the board, perhaps, not to have large, like Loudon, not to have a lot of large data centers, or like Louisa, but how do we prevent that if they can do it by right?

Question.

David's good.

I'm sorry, I'm David Benish, Development Process Manager again.

There are currently permitted in our zoning now in our industrial zoning district, so it would require an amendment to the zoning ordinance first.

Guidance in the complaint could guide what further decisions and location criteria you might have.

Okay, I think that might be worth something looking into.

Otherwise, they will come.

Because what I was told once again in the conference, you can have land that is $200 to $300 per acre.

I might wonder out loud if we have enough contiguous industrial-zoned land to actually support a data center.

So I think that is the functional stop gap that we currently have.

Any kind of actual data center that is able to operate a scale would probably require a zoning map amendment to actually get industrial.

And I invite staff to correct me if they think that is a mischaracterization, but I know the ones that we were talking about from these various articles that we circulate.

are massive.

There are different sizes and so you do have to be careful about how they're defined because some can be as small as actually a transformer that you see next to a light pole.

So they're all sorts of types.

You have to be careful with the definition.

But Mr. Pruitt is correct.

The ones that we're concerned about tend to be a really large land area.

And I appreciate the fact that they're usually on larger land masses.

But once again, what I learned is that as little as five acres.

So I'm just putting that out there.

Okay, thank you.

I very much appreciate that.

The other point regarding it, 2.1 regarding solar

and such, and I'm very happy to see that we're seeing parking lots and rooftop buildings, that we have that in there, and I'm wondering how much that can be emphasized.

I'd much rather see them on, and built commercial buildings, anything.

It would be nice to have other than solar farms.

Department, I know we have solar farms, but it would be nice to see more parking lots, more larger buildings, commercial buildings and such like that to encourage, do something to encourage shingles, solar shingles, things like that, if feasible.

And the last question I had, I know that we talked about, Supervisor McKeel mentioned about

A substation has a whole different definition, and because Jeff informed me in a meeting, I was talking, so I'm using the word office, not substation, because the substation

And I am very aware of what a police substation is, and I know all about that.

But I think what you're referring to is some place for them to go out in 726 square miles of our county to be able to... Right, to have access to the computer, maybe to a coffee pot, certainly to a restroom.

I'm just saying.

Is that now something that they could work with the fire department?

Because we have fire stations all over the place.

Just throwing it out there.

You can throw it back at me.

OK, thank you.

Those are all my questions.

Anything further?

Just one additional point.

I made this point at a different chapter review.

and

If we say we want it and we're all cheerleading for it, but then we're like, yeah, but we don't want to see them.

And make it difficult for places to do it, then they're not going to do it.

So we've got to be mindful of that wherever that falls into play here.

I happen to agree with, on the data center issue, I happen to agree with Supervisor Pruitt's point on this.

and so on.

to Supervisor Gallaway's point and Supervisor Lopisto-Kirtley's point about how we're actually, and again it has been mentioned in other chapters, how we're incentivizing rooftop solar.

I've talked with the staff liaisons at the ARB before about this and how they actively, you know, we, there is guidance about roof slope direction based on the entrance corridor that can directly compromise other

other considerations.

And we do not have any kind of, to my knowledge, nor have we formally explored what it would do to the market, to the development market, to require solar readiness on new developments.

Because not all roofs are designed in a way that can physically support solar installation, which is a concern.

And if we're saying that's a priority, we need to actually

and so on.

I think we need to act on that and realistically that might cause construction costs to be higher and I think we need to just have that data so we can actually make a decision on that at some point and what that would look like and you know this is public facilities chapter so maybe that's not the appropriate discussion but something we could also have is we're talking about new facilities we want to build.

It does seem prudent that we might say that we would require that new county facilities be

Thank you.

I promise I won't ask again.

One of the things that in the development areas goals pages, one thing that has not been included but could be very beneficial for

really good redevelopment in the growth areas is consideration for structured parking because getting away from these large, large acreages of parking lots and putting much more beneficial use on those employment and other things, there may be some math that will help to push the structured parking over the hump, over the threshold to be able to be possible, but I think it will allow a far better implementation of our growth areas for sure.

Thank you.

This brings us to where we would next go to the closed meeting.

But before we do that, I just want to bring up a point.

And that is that we have, of course, our six o'clock matters from the public.

And we do have about, well, certainly more than 10 people signed up already.

We have a number.

13 right now?

13 right now.

Well, we don't know what that number will be, so we may have to wait until we get back and find out what that number is, but there will be a question as to whether or not there's a motion made to, and I've got the motion ready if we need to, to expand that number beyond the 10 in light of that.

But I'm just going to look around and see what people's thinking is about the 10.

before we go in, then we can do that quickly when we get back if there's an appetite for going beyond 10.

Well, I understood that doing it on an individual day is not a good idea.

First of all, second of all, is there a notice when people could sign up online that shows you're not in time to be in the first 10?

Correct.

on-line it does say that it's limited to 10.

Pass that unless we shut it off after 10.

Okay.

We've not shut it off, but.

Another way to do it.

If we've, I think it's bad form to do it the day of, I agree.

and then I think just let me make it to 10.

We've told him 10.

Yes.

So this means we probably need to have a different discussion than specific to a topic to unwet it or untangle it from that and bring it up and just stick to what we said we were going to do.

what we define for folks.

And then I would, since we have their names, we could encourage them to send us written communication, that we could make those comments part of the public record, even though they don't speak it.

I don't think there's any prohibition for that.

The ability for us to include written communication as part of the minutes that's related to speaking rules, I think that's allowed.

I don't know, Mr. Rosenberg, whether the comments that can't be made but are given to us in writing then could be treated differently than just emails that we might receive on the topic as far as the record goes.

What is the difference?

I can't speak to what you were saying, but what my intent was was similar to when someone's here.

They get cut off at three minutes and they have another minute of talk.

We allow them to submit that substatement to us in lieu of the extra minute, and then those are included in the minutes, I thought, in the record.

Well, the minutes are what transpires at the meeting.

So the record, what's the record?

I would suggest to you that it's a combination of the minutes and any separately submitted materials

that are received from the public.

I guess I didn't know there was a difference between the record and the minutes.

I thought the same thing.

If people show up and they're not among the allowed to speak, they should be allowed to present the thing and get it part of this.

I think we're creating an artificial thing.

And how does somebody find out what the record is?

I really have jumped a gun.

Mr. Holt is still here.

I apologize.

Nothing on the previous topic.

I do have some closing sides about next steps in AC44, so if you are comfortable I can cover that real quick.

But thank you for your feedback, very helpful and very thorough.

I know, I know.

So just looking forward at our timeline, staff is planning to kick off phase three this spring.

So we're around late April, early May.

And at that point, we'll be sharing draft action steps for the chapter.

So that's the granular level implementation steps that fall under these objectives.

So hopefully that will help clarify how we're going to achieve some of these objectives.

And in the summer, we're going to schedule multiple planning commission and board work sessions to cover all the chapters, as well as activity centers, multimodal plans, and the future land use maps.

And that will include refinement of the action steps.

so that we can move towards plan finalization.

And the fall, we'll be focusing on plan priorities.

We're calling those big moves.

Those are priority actions that are going to, many of them will span multiple plan chapters.