Board of Supervisors Organizational Meeting   1/8/2025

I would like to call the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors regularly scheduled meeting for January the 8th, 2025, 1 p.m.

I would also like to announce that this meeting is the annual organizational meeting of the Board of Supervisors.

Good afternoon and happy new year.

My name is Jeff Richardson.

and I will be presiding over the meeting until the election of the chair, after which time I will pass the meeting over to the newly elected chair.

I'd like to mention at this point that I'm joined today by our county attorney, interim county attorney, Mr. Andy Herrick, and I'm also joined to the left by two of our staff from the clerk's office, Ms.

Claudette Borgensen and Mr. Travis Morris, also at the meeting today.

Lastly, I'd like to mention that our officers present for today's meeting are Lieutenant Angela Jamerson and Officer Tavon Richardson.

I'd like to thank the Albemarle County Police Department for its continued support.

And again, welcome to 2025.

Second from nomination from Ms.

Lapisto-Curtley.

A second from Ms.

Malik.

Are there any other nominations at this time?

They're being no further nominations.

The nominations are now closed.

So moved.

Motion made by Supervisor Malik, second by Ms.

Lapisto-Curtley.

Mr. Andrews?

Yes.

Ms.

Lapisto-Curtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Malik?

The motion to elect Supervisor Andrews as chair has passed.

We now move to the next order, which is the election of the vice chair.

Second.

So we have a nomination and a second to Supervisor McKeil.

If there are any further nominations.

If not, then we'll close the nominations.

Mr. Andrews?

Yes.

Ms.

Lapista-Curtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Malek?

Yes.

Ms.

Yes, done well wrangling the cats.

This is a really important year and I'm glad to have consistency in our leadership.

Keep getting the job done.

I'm happy to have you all.

Yes, I'm also very happy that you're leading the team because I think you've done an outstanding job this past year and looking forward to another great productive year.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you to everyone, and just a quick thought that we have a lot happening this year.

Exciting actions and moves for our community, and I think we're all anxious to get some of this work done.

Thank you all for trusting me again this year for this and we'll do our best to keep things moving and make sure every voice is heard.

I also agree that this is a challenging year ahead.

and I know there's a, it's a cliche in a way to say Audrey election is the most important election every the, every budget is the most important budget but this is, this is a big one and I look forward to working with all of you and from hearing from the public so I'm glad to see a lot of people here at this first meeting often not very well attended so really appreciate that we're going to get some business done

Our next item of business is continuing with the annual meeting is to appoint clerk for the current year.

We need a motion to appoint Claude Van Varkersen as the clerk for the year.

We have a motion from Supervisor Malek, second from Supervisor Lapisto-Curtley.

Our next item is to adopt our 2025 and January 2026 calendar of meetings which are in the packet.

Note the usual first and third Wednesdays except not the first Wednesday in July and the second Wednesday instead of the third in December.

We've also included numerous planned work sessions for the fiscal year 26 budget and for AC 44.

meetings and public hearings on the budget and tax rate and start right away with two more meetings in January.

So we're looking for a motion to adopt this calendar.

I have a motion for Supervisor Malek and a second from Supervisor Lopisto-Curtley Mr. Andrews?

Yes.

Mr. Galloway?

Yes.

Ms.

Lopisto-Curtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Malek?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Mr. Pruitt?

Aye.

These are the rules of procedure first for 2025.

We have again some minor changes, relatively minor changes in the packet, which have been summarized by the interim county attorney.

We have a motion from Supervisor Lapista-Curtley, second from Supervisor Malek.

Again, I want to make sure that there's any discussion.

Mr. Andrews.

Yes.

Mr. Galloway.

Yes.

Ms.

Lapista-Curtley.

Aye.

Ms.

Malek.

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel.

Yes.

And then we have board policies, again, relative to minor changes.

There are no changes to the policies.

Okay, thank you.

So we're looking for a motion to adopt the 2025 Board Policies.

So moved.

Second.

Motion from Supervisor McKeel.

Second from Supervisor Malek.

Mr. Andrews.

Yes.

Ms.

Lapisto-Curtley.

Aye.

Ms.

Malek.

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel.

Yes.

Thank you.

And then finally, in this vein, we have the adoption of the Board of Supervisors Operating Guidelines, which are a really important document for us in our relationship with the staff.

And I, again, look for a motion to adopt these operating guidelines.

So moved.

Second.

Again, motion by Supervisor Malek, second by Supervisor McKeel.

Mr. Andrews.

Yes.

Ms.

McKeele.

Yes.

Mr. Pruitt.

Again, I'll pause at this time for any comments any board members would like to make on the rules and all.

I think we've gone pretty smoothly.

Anything from Supervisor Calloway?

No, sir.

I think planning ahead on how you're going to do makes it all go smoothly.

Supervisor Pruitt.

I have no comments.

Thanks.

And I'll just make a comment that if the public is interested in any of these documents, they can certainly find them located, I'm assuming, on our website, but are they under, Andy, where are they?

County.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's an important point.

So I appreciate that.

And I appreciate the importance of those for how we operate and I think have served us well in operating smoothly.

We now are looking at this meeting for today and adoption of the final agenda, which I have not heard any suggested changes if there's a motion to adopt the final agenda.

So moved.

Second.

Mr. Andrews.

Yes.

Ms.

Lapista-Curtley.

Aye.

Ms.

Malek.

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel.

Yes.

And board, this is the time now for brief announcements by board members.

Well, I just wish everyone a Happy New Year.

Obviously, I hope everyone is taking care with the road conditions that are there.

I think it's a good time to remind folks that VDOT handles the clearing of county roads, that the county does not, with the exception of a few spots where there are some

agreement in place.

I know there's one small section that you have to go through the city to actually get to the county piece in my district that a memorandum of understanding helps get that cleared.

They go primary roads, secondary roads, then tertiary.

A lot of our neighborhood roads are tertiary, so those tend to be the last.

So depending on how difficult they are finding it to clear the roads, if you're concerned about your subdivision getting cleared,

that I saw some out in a few today, so it looks like they are getting out there today to start getting those cleaned up.

So I've received an email on that just a little bit ago, so I just thought I'd mention it.

But otherwise, looking forward to this new year and the challenges that we face, both with the COP plan and the budget that's coming up, but ready to get to work.

Thank you.

I'm sorry I will not be quite that brief, but anyway, happy 2025 to everybody.

And has been said before this is a critical year for so many projects which have been on our agenda and our work plane for many, many years.

I've been grateful, feeling grateful this week to the voters who sent me back last year because of the ability then to work on the new, finishing this new comprehensive plan, adding what we must and keeping

the character of the county supported by our voters for more than 60 years to my memory ordinance processes for the utility sale solar and for data centers adoption of the water protection chapter of the zoning ordinance updating the burn regulations putting in reporting regulations for sewage sludge these and many others have been in the queue for a long time citizens desire answers and closure to these issues which are hanging over them in many cases

But the start of 2025 brought us back to a halt, remembering a peanut farmer from Georgia.

And I think we've all been reading a lot in the newspaper about things he said that I remembered when they happened, but had forgotten.

So I just wanted to read a couple of little short things.

In 2021, he called upon Americans to reject political violence, polarization, disinformation, and embrace fairness, civility, and respect for the rule of law.

Without immediate action, we are at a genuine risk of civil conflict and losing our precious democracy.

Americans must set aside differences and work together before it is too late.

And another from 1979.

After a tumultuous era that I do remember well, we were living in Western Massachusetts for those years and fuel was short and tempers were too.

In this speech, he wrote about there are two paths to choose, he continued.

One is the path I've warned about tonight.

the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest.

Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others.

That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility in a certain route to failure.

We can do better, and we must for the sake of our residents today and our grandchildren and residents of tomorrow.

I would like to first just say how thrilled I am that since we last met at this

Park.

We have officially opened Biscuit Run Park.

This is contained entirely in the Scottsville Magisterial District in the southern part of our urban neighborhood right off Avon.

The parking lot, which is kind of the core feature that we really put in here.

The parking lot is going to be right at the intersection of Avon and Scottsville Road.

And that is a great park.

It's got hundreds of miles of trails.

I will say we were really we really got a bad hand

by the Lord Almighty here because it rained pretty heavily right after we opened this park and the very first few hundred feet of the park have a lot of clay but I promise once you get past that bit of clay it's a really beautiful trail network and it gets a lot drier and a lot easier to walk around but it's it's a hard road for the first few

and a few feet, especially just right as you get in there.

It's like truly the first 20 feet are the worst, I promise.

And there will be over the next several years a lot more amenities coming to this, a lot of sports fields, a lot of additional services that residents can take advantage of.

A big thing that I'm excited about this project is how, if you're familiar with the Avon corridor, you know that this is something that built up through subdivisions, right?

And a lot of these subdivisions are right next to each other.

throw a potato from my porch and hit my neighbor behind me, but to walk there takes 20 minutes.

What this is going to do is really connect by foot traffic and by biking traffic potentially.

a lot of different neighborhoods that are right next to each other, a lot of different parts of our community that are right next to each other as the crow flies, but are really disconnected.

And I think that interconnection is going to be a huge value that we see over time and how that's going to really be realized through our community.

So I am thrilled.

Also, I am always elections guy.

I like to talk about elections.

We do have an election every year.

That being said, the next one is going to be for a bit.

But I do just want to mention, in case you missed it, because the entire span of this election happened since we had our last meeting,

County.

Several special elections to fill vacated seats just occurred.

This was something that a lot of people were very focused on because it potentially influenced who controlled the legislature.

Democrats have narrowly retained control of the legislature thanks to winning two races in Loudon.

More locally, Senate District 10, we did elect, this is right next door to Albemarle County.

They elected Luther Seifers, a Republican, and Jack Tram will put up a hard fight

Albemarle.

we've had some really snowy weather it's quite treacherous I cannot get in and out of my own neighborhood right now because we've got a very short private road going straight up a hill that my little sedan cannot make it up so please make sure you're being thoughtful about whether or not the trips you make are necessary and whether or not this can be something you can put off for a few days while the snow melts I'm very grateful to know that throughout our community we've had blessedly few power outages

You might have heard, you know, my co-workers, I work for an organization out of Richmond.

That is not the experience they have had.

They've had significant outages and many of my co-workers still don't have water.

In the Scottsville District we had fewer than a hundred people who actually lost power.

That was folks who got their power through through Appalachian power and to my knowledge all of those are back on at this point.

No one was out of power for more than 24 hours based on what I've heard.

so I'm very grateful for the crews, for the linemen who put in that work and made sure that happened and that our community stayed safe and warm.

Lastly, kind of connecting a bit to what we were just talking about about the General Assembly, I want to mention what has increasingly become a hobby horse, which is since we last met, there has been a new sale of an apartment complex in my district.

The villas at Southern Ridge, this is kind of right off Fifth Street, just north of Fifth Street, near the Albemarle County offices on Fifth Street.

Very near Cavalier Crossing, very near Timberwood, all these, this neighborhood.

County.

Some of these are condos, but a lot of them are going to be residential rentals.

This was recently sold.

It has been sold to a Henrico based firm that has stated that they intend to invest a few million dollars to update and renovate and then significantly increase the rents of this area.

That is well within their right.

It is something that ultimately will increase the value of that property and increase the value of Albemarle County is also

This is something that I've already talked about when it emerged at Cavalier Crossing as potentially disastrous to a lot of low-income residents in our community.

And it's something that we continue to have little to no ability to do anything about.

I'm very grateful that this board has approved some additional security deposit assistance.

is going to potentially help displaced residents find new places to live, but the places to live are dwindling because we continue to see the little affordable housing inventory we have diminish, get redeveloped into less affordable housing.

So I would like to take this opportunity to also mention that I've had a productive conversation with Delegate Coulson and her team and some folks from legislative services about a bill that this body supported that is going to look at exploring what we can do and what additional powers could really help to try and stop this loss of affordable housing inventory.

County, New York.

and the end result is displacing a lot of folks.

So I'm really excited to see what becomes of that bill.

I'm going to probably make my face known a few times in Richmond to try and get some movement on that and I would love to have some more support from the community and from my board as we continue to confront this issue.

Thank you.

Supervisor Lapisto-Curdley.

District.

A lot of good comments.

I just wanted to give a recap of basically what's happened in the Rivanna District over the last few months, the enlarging of Darden Tau by adding Freebridge Lane.

which has been very, very popular and we have a it's only for one year it's a pilot program but so many people are going through there and they're really enjoying that walk I don't think they're doing it right now because of the snow speaking of the snow it's not in the ice it's not going to melt I don't think anytime soon because at night it freezes so I think everyone will have to be careful particularly those people on tertiary roads

that have not been plowed yet.

It could be very dangerous.

Just wanted to give you an update.

There has been a parks and recreation, Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Foundation formed.

People can donate to that for the benefit of our parks and parks throughout Albemarle County.

The other one that is being formed is a fire rescue foundation, which

really complements our fire department.

We already have a police foundation, so those people, because we're very generous in the county, those people wanting to donate for amenities that the county does not provide for fire rescue and also police.

That's all I have.

Just piggybacking beyond your great reminders, I will add that Albemarle County Public Schools now has a foundation as well so that if folks want to donate to public schools and Albemarle County Public Schools, they can find that information on the Albemarle County Public Schools website.

I have a couple of other things that I just want to point out.

On Tuesday, January the 21st, there will be a seminar on learn how not to become

a victim of fraud, scams, or abuse.

And this is for seniors and is being provided to us by the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General, as well as sheriffs and police and firefighters are banding together.

It's called the Virginia Triad.

So that will be held Tuesday, January the 21st, 10 o'clock to 1130 at J.M.

R.L.

Central Library, which of course is on Market Street.

So a good opportunity for seniors to be able to ask some questions and get some good information.

The other, one other item I want to really celebrate is that the University of Virginia Health Children's

Hospital, Centera Martha Jefferson Hospital have now opened the Pediatric Neurodevelopmental and Behavioral Health Care Clinic, which is located on 29 North.

If you think about right there near the bridge,

on 29 North, and it is a partnership to expand access to behavioral health care for children across Central Virginia.

That means we now have services for children with autism, ADHD, anxiety, and depression.

They opened for their first clinic on December the 20th, and it is accessible for all children regardless of their insurance or ability to pay.

and interpreters will be available.

So this is really something to celebrate for our community.

I'm really pleased to see this happening.

And it's a great partnership between the healthcare providers and our community.

And I think we all sort of, or at least Ann and I are tag teaming a little bit because, of course, Jimmy Carter, our 39th President of the United States, and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, Dad, Sunday, December 29th.

and I just thought it was appropriate today to remind ourselves of some of his administration's accomplishments, especially as Albemarle County is updating our comprehensive plan which has a focus on environmental stewardship.

Carter believed in harnessing the power of the sun, our most renewable and sustainable energy.

In 1979, he celebrated the installation of the first solar panels on the White House roof to fuel water heaters in the White House.

At that time, he challenged Americans to support a national solar power program

understanding solar was clean, economical, and would provide a more secure and self-reliant nation.

He established the Department of Energy and mandated the first gas mileage standards for cars and required cars to have seatbelts in their bags.

And he doubled the size of lands protected by the National Park Service and was the first president to undertake the federal cleanup of a hazardous waste site.

as President Jimmy Carter urged Americans to protect our most precious possession, the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land which sustains us.

I believe Jimmy would endorse the hard work and expense it takes to accomplish these goals.

And given his belief in solar, would endorse our community's new vision of moving numerous public transit vehicles to hydrogen fuel cell technology powered by solar.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Yeah, I echo a lot of the comments made by previous supervisors.

I look forward to a challenging but rewarding discussions this year on budget and challenges related to safety services, social services, housing, economic opportunities, natural resource stewardship, and continuing strengthening I hope of our relations with the city and the university and our legislators and our regional partners.

We're mentioned passing.

I do want to address that this whole board I know shares in mourning the passing of Mr. Chuck Pace, who was a dedicated educator, stepped up to be on the board of education at a time of need and then one reelection only to have his term cut short and we're very sorry to see him go.

His seat will of course be up for

and again an election with a full slate already of local and state elections this year.

On the subject of weather, just a second Supervisor Galloway's comments that VDOT is in charge but you know we can pass on messages but I do encourage people to use the website feature or 1-800-4-ROAD that's for 800-367-7623 to report issues with road cleanup.

I know it's bad out there.

I fell yesterday, even though we had already thought we cleaned everything up, but it didn't quite get enough of that treatment on a transparent ice step, and it was not a bad fall, but please be careful out there.

If I could, Mr. Chair, I appreciate you pointing out the passing of Mr. Pace.

the week before he passed I had just received word from some folks who were expressing to me how the teachers of the school division really appreciated and enjoyed Mr. Pace and his service and how he listened to them and not you know it's easy to listen sometimes I think and receive questions and nod and go with that but he would follow back through with answers and they really appreciated that type of service and I also you know it was with some

in a few of the school board meetings that I had the opportunity to sit in on watching him as a new member ask questions.

I remember my first year on that board and it's important to be able to ask questions for understanding and he was doing that with such an earnestness and he was enjoying it learning about the division and what he could do as a policymaker.

The Rio district is certainly at a loss for his passing because of the service he was putting in and was getting ready to do a full term on.

The board brings us to our next item, which is, no, styled.

A public comment on matters previously considered or currently pending before the board other than scheduled for public hearings for today.

And with that, I'll turn this over to the vice chair.

Do we have people signed up to speak?

We do.

We have people signed up to speak, but we have no one online.

OK.

So everyone is in person.

And welcome.

We have nine speakers.

Welcome.

and let me first read what we ask folks to do as they are speaking.

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

University, and

indicates your time has expired and you'll 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

is present to raise their hands in recognition.

Speakers may not share unused time with another speaker.

Back and forth debate is not permitted, and please do not speak from your seat or out of turn.

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

And our first speaker today is John Gully.

I'm John Kelly, yes, and thank you for your work on the board.

I appreciate you giving us this opportunity.

I am here to speak to the beauty of the area and the efforts to preserve it.

I am involved with this group, Albemarle Gravel and Wine, and we just do weekly outrageously fun gravel rides in the area and connect people to

the history and to the economy in a way that is distinctive and it's the and moving here from North Carolina a state that has the most miles of paved roads of many states in the East Coast I think the most it's it's like one giant Applebee's and when I moved to Charlottesville I was just like overwhelmed by the beauty and distinctive character of the area and I just want to make a plea to preserve it

and it's they've done a lot of research on the gravel roads.

I'm sure you're familiar with some of this, but they're cost effective over time.

They're safer.

And once we paved these roads, they

The speeds increase, and they work against the distinctive sense of this community, I think, and what makes it great.

And so many of these roads, in particular, like I was on Ridge Road this morning, and it's a de facto public park.

It's just along with Dick Woods.

Some of these roads are so frequently traveled by a UVA cross-country team, or just local area cyclists and runners.

and we have over 500 members in our Albemarle Gravel and Wine Group and we are creating experiences that connect people to the history and to in a way that can't be matched in some other communities.

Good afternoon.

I'm Bob Putnam, and I am a resident of Scottsville District.

And I'm here to show my support for the Albemarle County Eastman Association.

I live in Scottsville.

My wife and I are stewards of 67 acres of mixed deciduous hardwoods.

In the past 35 years, I have witnessed a dramatic reduction in native habitat.

Harbored forests converted to pine plantations, rural development, wineries, and industrial ventures, such as utility-scale solar.

Our 67 acres has been a small part of a large network of natural forest.

Now, we are a small island.

of Native Landscape, about to be engulfed by a large industrial solar complex or project.

This past year, we were able to put this land in a conservation easement.

Albemarle County easement authority made this possible.

The staff was helpful and knowledgeable.

We couldn't have done this without them.

The process is complex and expensive.

Too expensive for most small landowners.

The easement authority made it possible for us to preserve this small but important natural place.

But we are lucky to have the resources to do this.

Many small landowners

are not.

This is why we need to fund and revitalize the ACE program and continue to support Albemarle County's easement programs.

Thank you.

I haven't seen you all in a while.

Rexlandville and the Samuel LaMille district, I want to start by going off script and just saying thank you all for opening Biscuit Run Park and the investment that you've made in that and I'm super excited about the bridge that's going to connect it over to Southwood eventually.

Both of those are projects that are near and dear to my heart that I was involved with in early phases so thank you for that.

For nearly 25 years, Albemarle County has been a leader in land conservation.

Despite the success, threats old and new continue to chip away at the farms, forests, natural habitat areas, and scenic open space that have defined Albemarle County for generations.

Subdivision is the classic threat that we're all aware of, but we're also seeing a regional and national rise in land loss due to utility-scale renewable energy facilities that can consume thousands of acres in a single swallow.

given the persistent need to preserve and protect the land base that increases community resilience by providing natural climate solutions.

I'm delighted to see that the draft rural area section of the comp plan proposes the continuation and reactivation of the ACE program and increases funding and increased funding for monitoring and enforcement capacity of the conservation easement authority.

These two programs and voluntary land conservation in general are key components of the county's strategy for achieving the vision of the rural area.

At one point, the county was investing as much as $1.5 million plus annually in the ACE program, and I would encourage you to move forward with an annual allocation of at least that much, those past levels, that would allow the county to take advantage of historically high levels of matching funds available in conservation programs, both at the state and federal level.

as for increasing the capacity of the ACE program, with 210 Easements, the authority, I'm sorry, the ACE, the ACEA program, with 210 Easements, the authority is now one of the largest land trusts in the Commonwealth.

One of the key recommendations embedded in the Land Trust Alliance's standards and practices for how to operate a land trust legally, ethically, and in the public interest is annual monitoring of at least, of every conservation easement held by the land trust.

in the capacity to live up to the stewardship and enforcement obligation inherent in those 210 easements is vital to the success of the conservation program and the rural area preservation.

Finally, over the years, I've heard unfounded concerns that protected land reduces the county's net tax revenue when in fact they are revenue positive.

First and foremost, cows don't go to school.

And protected lands reduce the county's cost to community services.

Secondarily, because of the way that land under conservation easement is carried on the county's land use books, the county receives more school funding through the composite index calculation at the state level and pays less to the city of Charlottesville via the revenue sharing agreement.

finally I'll close by saying that a recent survey showed that 92% of voters nationally indicate they believe we need to do more to protect land water and wildlife.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, I'm John Moore Samuel Miller District.

I've lived in and around Albemarle County four separate times since 1972, including time at UVA in the early 80s getting a master's degree in land use and environmental planning.

It was an exciting time for planning in Virginia.

That's when Albemarle County took a deep look at both its natural resources and its capacity to absorb growth in a fiscally and environmentally responsible manner.

The results of the studies and analyses to determine how the county should grow were twofold.

First, a comprehensive plan that established both well-defined areas to accommodate growth and resource protection areas that collectively became the rural area.

Then, to implement the plan, the county revised its zoning ordinance to direct development into the growth areas and away from the more sensitive and vulnerable rural area.

Studies show that the economic activities including agriculture and tourism conducted in and enabled by the rural area are a significant portion of the county's economy and worth protecting.

Think of the rural area as the nest of the goose who later golden egg in Charlottesville.

Protecting the rural area from the deleterious effects of sprawling and higher density growth has been a paramount tenet of the county planning ethos for over 40 years.

Why?

Because the natural resources on which we depend, clean air, clean water, agricultural soils, forests and rivers, depend on our stewardship of those resources.

I'm on the board of directors of the Albemarle County Eisman Authority, a body who owes its very existence to the county's enlightened commitment to protecting the rural area by providing a means for its citizens to voluntarily and permanently protect their land from excess or inappropriate development.

I'm also a member of the ACE committee whose purpose is to help equalize

The financial benefits of easement donation for those families unable to make meaningful direct use of both federal and state tax incentives.

That program has remained unfunded by the county during my entire tenure on the authority and the ACE committee.

As a first step and as a matter of simple equity to its citizens, I would encourage the board to fund the ACE program.

And to that end,

to establish an Albemarle County Conservation Fund as a conduit for other conservation-related projects.

I also strongly urge the Board and Planning Commission to deepen your commitment to the importance of the rural area and to continue successful and enlightened approach to the management of future growth in the county 40 years in the making.

Let's work together to foster and promote sustainable growth that enriches our citizens and protects our valuable natural resources.

Thank you all very much for your due consideration.

Hi and thanks for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Dan Becker.

I live in Simeon Miller District.

I've been a resident of the county for over 40 years.

18 years ago, I put my farm in North Garden under easement with the ACE program.

And I can tell you that that has been a lifesaver for me.

First of all, I don't have enough income to take full advantage of the tax credits.

having direct payments from the county to facilitate this easement has been just great.

Also wanting to protect my property and perpetuity and looking for an easement holder.

Well, an easement holder is only as good as the organization that is under.

With the county, you know it's going to be there forever.

You have that confidence in that perpetuity.

Also, the process was extremely easy.

to do all of the survey assessments, the baseline data reports, the title searches, all of that was handled by the county, which if I had gone through another easement organization I would have had to pay for and do myself.

I've since put an overlay easement on the property through the 500 year forest foundation and together my neighbor and I, my neighbor did the same thing

almost 300 acres on the east side of Cook Mountain down there is now under protection of perpetuity.

All made possible and jump-started by the ACE program.

So, like the other speakers before me, I would encourage you to refund this program, keep it in place.

And also, there's been suggested that an Albemarle Conservation Fund be incorporated, and I think that would be a great idea, because there's money being left on the table.

There's grants, federal and state.

for this program that the county is currently not utilizing.

You could also take money from proffers under special use permits to go into that fund that could be used for the age program and other important conservation measures.

Lots of creative opportunities if such a fund is created.

We've all seen the increased traffic pressure, development, encroaching into the rural areas.

These are powerful forces and they're not going to go away.

So everything we can do to protect the rural areas becomes vitally important.

Thank you.

Hi everybody.

I'm Stuart Everby.

I live in Southern Albemarle in the Samuel Mellow District.

I'm here representing a group of landowners in that area.

We were brought together by a couple of very large and melodorous applications of biosolids, a.k.a.

sewage sludge that happened in our area this past spring and summer.

We call our group Don't Spread on Me.

We have done a lot of research on the topic and among the things we've learned is the sewage sludge is being marketed to farmers as free or low cost fertilizer is full of toxins including pharmaceuticals, heavy metals, industrial chemicals, hormones, pathogens and PFAS also known as forever chemicals.

Therefore, it's important that the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission and Planning Commission staff understand this practice undermines pretty much all the laudable goals of the AC44, including environmental stewardship, supporting agriculture and biodiversity, and the pursuit of clean water.

It also undermines your tax base because PFAS contaminated land is worthless.

It can't be farmed and it can't be lived on.

It might be good for an industrial solar farm.

I know that Supervisor Malik has been aware of this issue for years and has identified several places in the environmental stewardship chapter.

in which at least mention of biosolids can be inserted.

And I encourage all of you to accept and adopt those suggestions.

And in addition, I hope you'll all work with us in 2025 to help craft a biosolids ordinance for the county.

We have a lot of information about this issue on our new website, don'tspreadonme.org, which is still a bit of a work in progress, but please take a look.

And I hope you'll be willing to meet and engage with us in conversation on this issue.

will be in touch.

Thank you.

The next speaker, and I will admit, I'm having, I'm struggling to make sure I can understand exactly what the last name is.

Peter, and I'm not sure the spelling of the last name.

I apologize.

Is it, is it Dutnell?

Dutnell?

I'm close.

I apologize if I mispronounce any names, but

Is that okay?

Right.

I'm a farmer in North Garden.

I've been there for 34 years.

I've been a farmer all my life.

The reason I went into agriculture, farming, lifestyle farming primarily was because of my interest in nature and conservation and both sides of the Atlantic.

It's been privileged to own land and quite difficult to protect it and to steward it.

There seems to be a lack of that.

There used to be more stewardship in Albemarle County in days of past.

But it seems to have given way to greater development and the people who come here, unnecessarily country people with the understanding of country ways.

And that is a problem.

And so education

is possibly the best way to deal with that from the young people.

We need young people in agriculture.

You all eat food, and we need good, healthy food with our chemicals, and organically if possible.

Albemarle County is a clay soil, which is very sensitive and subject to erosion, as we've just had this year.

It's gone past.

Two droughts and severe floods are very difficult to maintain.

So I think education from the schools or maybe Piedmont or something like that could be indicated here.

I thank you for the chance of being here in this county.

I've enjoyed it.

I'm 80 years of our age trying to retire.

It doesn't seem to happen very easily, but still fighting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi there.

Good afternoon.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.

I've spoken to about several things having to do with AC44.

Today, I just want to remind you that the phrase, think global, act local, has never been more relevant than it is today.

We're living at a time when we have to grapple with many human caused problems, crises really, that are threatening our future.

Here in Albemarle, we may seem to be very far removed from the chaos of climate disturbance, resource scarcity, species extinction, and serious pollution problems.

But without recognizing what's happening around us, we'll fail to do what we can locally to address these issues.

Land conservation and stewardship is a solution to many of these problems.

The rural area is not just scenic, though I cherish the views living here.

It plays an important role in sequestering carbon, moderating temperature, slowing and absorbing unprecedented rainfalls, protecting water quality and quantity, and preserving biodiversity.

I know you all are well aware of this, but it bears repeating and often.

Let's invest in protecting it from fragmentation and degradation before it's too late.

To that end, in AC44, the county should do more to strengthen its land conservation programs.

Please reinvigorate our easement authority and reactivate our ACE program and make climate change action, including natural solutions, a whole of government pursuit.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Kim Biasioli with the Piedmont Environmental Council.

There you go.

Thank you.

My comments today are about the AC44 rural area chapter.

We're so pleased to see the emphasis on land conservation and objectives and actions that support the county's own programs.

Land conservation is a critical tool for implementing the growth management policy and succeeding with the plans goals for environmental stewardship and climate action.

Keeping rural land intact is in and of itself a natural climate solution, providing public benefits like carbon sequestration and flood resiliency to our entire community.

were undervaluing these benefits.

Economic analyses consistently show a return on investment in land conservation in the form of natural goods and services and by reducing the cost of providing additional services to the rural area.

Things like schools, fire and rescue, water and sewer.

These are just some of the considerable costs that come from allowing sprawl.

The intact natural landscape is also a major component of our area's billion dollar tourism industry.

People don't come here to breathe in smog and stare at the pavement.

By establishing and supporting its land conservation programs, Albemarle has long been viewed as a leader in the Commonwealth.

This success is widely recognized in the conservation community.

where Albemarle County's programs are regarded as exceptional and as models for other localities to follow.

However, resources for these programs have fluctuated over time and the ACE program has not been active in recent years.

When this program was active, it conserved land and water with an equitable approach, providing more support to farms at risk and to landowners who needed it most.

So as you review the rural area chapter today, I hope you'll focus on two things.

First, please remove the language proposing a target for a percentage of the rural area that may be conserved.

This is a de facto allowance for sprawl and its contradictory to the county's own vision for our community, specifically outlined in the growth management policy, the rural area and environmental stewardship chapters, and the climate action and biodiversity action plans.

Second, please take this opportunity to reestablish Albemarle as a conservation leader by establishing stable and dedicated funding and staffing for the land conservation programs.

These are a critical investment for our community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate all the comments today.

Our next item is the Consent Agenda.

Do we have a motion to accept?

I've heard no recommendations to changes.

Motion from Supervisor McKeel.

Second from Supervisor Malek.

Mr. Andrews.

Yes.

Mr. Galloway.

Yes.

Missalpista-Curtley.

Aye.

Ms.

Malek.

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel.

Yes.

Welcome back.

At this point, we will take up a work session on AC 44 rural area land use chapter led by Torrey Connell Oplos, principal planner.

Welcome to you and Mr. Barnes and everyone here to help.

Thank you.

Good afternoon Board of Supervisors.

My name is Tori Kenelopoulos.

I'm a principal planner on the long-range planning team, and we'll be talking about the rural area chapter today, the conference of plan update.

And I'm also joined by several colleagues in the planning and zoning departments to help answer questions since this is a complicated topic.

So we'll start out with sharing the topics that we're asking for specific board direction on, and then share a brief summary of the planning commission's feedback from their two recent work sessions on the rural area chapter, a quick overview of community input themes, and then walk through the goal objectives and actions for this chapter, talk about the preferred land uses in the rural area, ways to protect large and unfragmented parcels, non-residential land uses in the rural area,

Rural communities and then talk about the upcoming schedule for the comprehensive plan.

So today we'll be asking for direction on these topics.

These are things very similar to the ones that we share in the board's packet with just a few slight wording changes and consolidation.

So we're looking for feedback on if the chapter provides sufficient recommendations and context for updating the zoning ordinance related to the rural area.

If the board supports reactivating the acquisition of conservation easements program or if additional information is needed.

for making that decision.

If the Board supports related actions 2.1 and 3.1 to reduce parcel fragmentation and support land conservation, which I'll talk more about, and what additional considerations or criteria, if any, should be added to the area planning process for rural communities, which I'll also talk more about in the presentation, and then in general, if anything seems to be missing or if other changes are needed.

So before we dive in, just a quick overview of the rural area.

I'm sure many folks listening will be familiar, but in case anyone is new to the process or to the county, the rural area is about 690 square miles, so about 95% of the county's land area.

About 46% of rural area land is within water supply watersheds for our public drinking water supplies.

and that was a main reason for establishing the rural area with the first comprehensive plan.

Almost a third is within national register historic districts and about 38% is within farmland and that has been fairly consistent over time.

So this is a summary of the planning commission's work sessions in November and December on the rural area.

For conservation easements, the commission mentioned that there are different types of easements providing protection for different resources and emphasize the importance of resources in the biodiversity action plan.

And the commission did not recommend including a specific target for a percentage of land to conserve within the rural area, which I'll also talk a little bit more about.

There was support for industrial uses that also support local agriculture and forestry, but the commission felt that more restrictive language might be needed in the comp plan, making sure we're emphasizing local agriculture and forestry and not a broad range of industrial uses and then considering potential impacts.

for the rural area land use plan, the commission recommended different layers and data that could be included to evaluate the rural area and also recommended addressing action 2.1 for lot size to be done with the rural area plan.

The commission asked us to consider where housing may be appropriate in the rural area in very limited locations and then also to continue to discourage subdivisions and their impacts to natural resources and habitat connectivity.

The commission asked us to address potential impacts related to tourism in the rural area and then for rural communities to more specifically list out what type of uses could be appropriate and mentioned, artisan and craft uses.

and then small engine repair such as for farm vehicles and asked us to look at potentially including more criteria or guardrails for these types of uses and their impacts.

So we've received quite a bit of community input over time on the rural area, and this is a very brief summary, but this highlights the main themes that we've heard that includes protecting and restoring the natural environment, including land conservation, for rural communities, having a community engagement process specific to individual communities, and looking at small-scale businesses and services and resilience hubs that support community members.

and continuing to protect historic cultural and scenic resources and ensuring that adaptive reuse uses similar building footprints.

So a quick reminder of how we're drafting each chapter within the COMP plan that includes input from community members, the planning commission and board and staff reviewing the current comprehensive plan and carrying forward work that is still relevant and that should be included, incorporating best practices and then using the AC44 guiding principles which were developed in phase one and are shown on the screen.

So each chapter includes a goal, objectives, and actions.

The goal is the high-level vision for what we want the community to be like.

Objectives are what we're trying to achieve, and then the actions are how we implement the plan to achieve those objectives.

This is a summary of the goal statement for this chapter, and it reflects the community input and priorities that we've heard to date, and it's very similar to the priorities in the 2015 Comprehensive Plan, including thriving farms and working forests, protected natural historic scenic and cultural resources, rural communities, and large unfragmented parcels.

and this is a summary of the objectives for this chapter.

There are seven total including protecting rural land use patterns and associated resources

improving the effectiveness of land conservation, supporting local agriculture and forestry, adaptive reuse in rural communities, and planning for and managing non-residential uses and existing development.

So a few things to note about the actions that are in this comprehensive plan.

We are not including actions that have been completed or are already ordinance requirements, and also noting that relevant actions are found in other chapters related to the rural area, such as transportation and environmental stewardship.

So these are the preferred land uses in the rural area, which are consistent with the 2015 Comprehensive Plan that includes land conservation, agriculture and forestry, and then noting that a significant amount of the rural area is identified as having important soil for those agriculture and forestry uses.

So looking at the rural area landscape, about 13% of the rural area has been converted to non-rural uses, and that includes residential uses.

About a quarter is protected, and then about 4% is within parkland.

So that leaves over half of the rural area that is not protected and not yet developed.

So the chapter emphasizes the importance of avoiding these intermediate parcel sizes that are too small for farming or forestry.

are also large for residential and then avoiding subdivisions that break up habitat connectivity.

So we have a couple of tools that we'll be emphasizing today related to keeping those parcels unfragmented.

One is conservation easements.

and those are voluntary and permanent agreements to protect rural area land and natural and cultural resources and as mentioned about a quarter of the rural areas protected in permanent conservation easements through a variety of easement programs.

They limit subdivision and residential and commercial development and they can focus on protection of different resources so that could include stream buffers, agricultural land, historic sites or wildlife habitats.

The ACE program is a purchase of development rights program with an equity focus and it provided financial incentives for landowners of modest means to protect their family farm from future development.

And this is an important tool from both an equity and climate action standpoint as it reduces residential development in the rural area and helps landowners, especially those with lower income, hold on to their land and reduce pressure to sell.

So another related action to keeping parcels unfragmented is 2.1, which is having a maximum lot size for residential development.

So I'll talk a little bit more about how subdivisions and development rights work in the rural area now, because it's a little bit complicated.

But the purpose is to have residential lots be smaller, to have more land left over for land conservation or agriculture or forestry.

So right now when there are subdivisions in the rural area, we're seeing about six acres is the typical lot size with the minimum requirement being two acres.

So we have a couple of examples to walk through.

This is one from the 2015 comprehensive plan, just a theoretical example, but on the left hand side it shows the development that's allowed by right today.

So today you can have a subdivision of 21 acres or more by right in the rural area.

and then for lots that have development rights which were assigned with the 1980 rezoning to rural area that the county did, you can have up to five residential lots

which must be at least two acres and then once subdivided they can't add up to more than 31 acres total.

So in this example on the left there's a parcel that's about 11 acres and some that are about six, one that's three and those add up to 31 acres total and then the other lots are 21 acres by right.

so that's how the subdivisions work today and the example on the right again is just a theoretical example but it shows what that could look like if the maximum lot size was four acres so that would only use 20 acres for those development right lots and the result in smaller residential parcels with more land left over for other uses.

and this is the second example that shows what that could look like if the maximum lot size with development right lots divisions was two acres which would leave even more large parcels left over.

So again these are just theoretical examples and the recommended action just recommends establishing a maximum lot size but doesn't specify what that should be yet.

So a priority recommendation in AC 44 that is not in the current comprehensive plan

is the rural area land use plan.

So that includes recognizing multiple geographic areas within the rural area that have specific conservation needs.

So instead of treating the rural area as just one land use, this would look at having multiple land uses and also multiple conservation focus areas.

So that would include community engagement and also geographic analysis and mapping analyses.

And as the Planning Commission mentioned, there are multiple tools we can draw from like the Biodiversity Action Plan, the environmental features that we have in GIS, and other areas to show those priority protection places.

And then one thing I wanted to note that's a change from the information included in the packet is that based on the Planning Commission's feedback, we recommend removing the percent target for conservation.

So that has been removed from this slide and we recommend removing that from action 1.1.

Another important area for the updated comprehensive plan is guidance for how we should update our zoning ordinance with the zoning modernization project.

Currently most rural area zoning district uses are related to agriculture and forestry and then supporting uses and then there's some small-scale businesses and services allowed for rural communities.

The current comprehensive plan has a criteria for new uses section in the rural area chapter.

So those are considerations for what new uses could be allowed in the rural area zoning district either by right or special use permit for uses that are not currently allowed in the rural area zoning district.

and the AC44 chapter has an update to that section which is summarized on this slide and then also included on page three of the draft chapter to help guide the zoning modernization project.

These are very similar to the 2015 plan recommendations ensuring uses support agriculture and forestry and or rural communities and making sure they don't have significant infrastructure or environmental impacts.

This is a summary of other land uses besides agriculture and forestry and land conservation that may be appropriate in the rural area but are not appropriate in all locations and have impacts that should be mitigated and those could even be through performance standards or through the special use permit process.

So that includes uses that support local agriculture and forestry and rural communities, low impact outdoor recreation, low impact economic development and then utility scale solar which will be covered in a future chapter and is also moving along the process of the zoning ordinance update for utility scale solar.

So one area that we've heard a lot of feedback on since sharing this chapter is making the actions more clear related to industrial uses that support local agriculture and forestry.

So that includes action 4.2 for light industrial and commercial uses that support local processing and retail sales.

And then also the actions under objective 7 regarding commercial and industrial uses and the interstate interchanges.

So we'll be making updates to that section, including based on feedback that we hear today.

So these industrial uses are important from a location standpoint due to their impacts.

They are uses that could be appropriate at the interstate interchanges.

and they also inform future zoning ordinance and land use updates such as changes during a rural area land use plan.

One potential use that the Planning Commission mentioned as an example was commercial kitchens and we also wanted to note that the Rural Interstate Interchange recommendation is very similar to the 2015 Comprehensive Plan which also recommends studying the Shadwell interchange especially for uses that could support agriculture and forestry.

The AC44 plan update also recommends studying the Yancy Mills interchange, but prioritizing studying Shadwell first.

And that study would include community input and commission and board work sessions.

And one of the major reasons to study these areas is because they already have existing commercial and industrial development and underlying zoning districts with the potential for additional by right development.

But that is a recommendation for future study and not changing land use with the comprehensive plan update.

So rural communities are existing communities within the rural area.

They're called crossroads communities in the 2015 comprehensive plan.

And their purpose is to provide access to essential public services and basic service needs for rural residents that can include community resilience hubs.

And the focus is on equitable service provision, but without encouraging additional residential development.

So these are very similar recommendations to the 2015 Comprehensive Plan and they build on the current plan and community input heard during AC44.

The current Comprehensive Plan recommends potential land uses for crossroads communities such as country stores, offices, daycare, doctor or dentist offices, community centers, and public institutional uses such as post offices.

So there are similar uses listed in the rural area chapter for AC44 on page 5.

including a few additions such as fire rescue and police services, job training programs, community gathering spaces, emergency shelters, and access to affordable and healthy food.

Many of these could be accommodated in existing buildings which could also be designated as resilience hubs.

many of these uses already exist in rural communities and the comprehensive plan is needed to provide guidance for potential additional locations and also for adaptive reuse of existing buildings so again further study is needed which could be through a rural area land use plan or some other process and this chapter does recommend engagement with individual communities prior to land use changes if any are desired

County, New York City, New York City, New York City, New York City, New York City, New York City, New York City, New York City, New York City, New York City, New York City, New York City,

which is pretty similar to the current comprehensive plan recommendations as well.

So this is a quick recap of the schedule.

We went to the planning commission on the environmental stewardship chapter in December and the board work session for that chapter is coming up on January 22nd.

As mentioned, we went to the planning commission on the rural area in November and December.

We have today's work session on the rural area.

We will be revising the Development Areas Land Use Chapter and Rural Area Land Use Chapter and Growth Management Policy and coming back to the Board in February for further input on those chapters, including based on your input today.

And then the Parks and Recreation Chapter will be going to the Planning Commission later this month and then to the Board in February.

So this is a brief reminder of the direction topics for today.

I'm happy to also answer questions and take comments on other sections.

We do also have the objectives and actions queued up on the following slides.

So if the board's preference is to walk through one at a time and answer these questions along the way, we can definitely do that.

Thank you.

And I'm torn here looking to my right and left as far as whether we go through these topics first or whether we jump to if we can keep these somehow in our frame to the objectives and actions one at a time so that we keep it organized.

I look at the first one, whether the chapter provides sufficient recommendations and context for updating the county's zoning ordinance.

I think partially connected to the objectives and actions but also to the section on the third page on the guidance for for the uses in the rural area.

Yeah, I'm a little nervous about starting with that one.

I think it's pretty broad as far as updating the county sorting ordinance without looking at everything else that's going to be commented on.

So if it's, if you will, and I think because this would actually dovetail with some objectives, maybe we could do number two first.

It dovetails well with objective three.

If the Board supports reactivating ACE, an additional information needed to evaluate.

And I will go through our order with that.

So I'm addressing number two.

Is that one of them?

Yes.

Keep me in my lane here.

Right.

Well, fundamental, and I'll be brief, I don't want me to take a lot of time.

I think fundamentally for me,

I won't be able to answer this question today because it's a budget question for me.

So yes, I think additional information is needed and that I would be supportive.

There are many times through our budget process where we have what we casually could refer to them as parking lot items.

But in years past, we've had some things where before the budget even gets started, we know we've got some bigger topics to discuss.

So I think we just, I would say, all right, we need to do that.

through public comment today, I think in our own conversations in the past on ACE going back since I've been on this board, there's a lot of statements being thrown around about return on investment and how it relates to revenue for the county, what it actually costs, what the return is.

I think a lot of that could be teased out so that we're all on the same page on it.

and then we just have to decide because it is something that costs us something and as we do with anything that we program funds for we consider what that cost is, what the return is and then where it fits in the priorities, you know, ranking against other items that we have that are needs.

So, you know, to me this is fundamentally, you know, I'm not speaking to the merits of the program or

the environmental stewardship that's piece of this and the philosophical nature of it, I'm not going to be questioning.

So for me, I really do need to have a very specific budget conversation about it before I would say yes or no to supporting a reactivation of it.

So that's where I'm at on it.

Some of the questions I would have about it going into it

based on what's being said here in the presentation that I need cleaned up.

I think on whatever slide it's on it says it helps folks with modest means.

I need to be reminded what that criteria is.

Modest means can be interpreted interestingly and this is a program

that shouldn't be interpreted based on who's saying it.

It should be very clear and clean about what it is.

So I need to be reminded about what that is.

I think one question I have right now is it was put here that it's an equity piece.

And from based on what your statement was, Tori, that it sounds like it's because it helps lower income, that the equity is socioeconomic.

Does it address the equity lens in any other way?

Racial Diversity for Racial Landowner.

I would ask if Scott Clark could

And as he's coming up, I'm just going to remind the board that while we are taking these one at a time, it's odd.

Number three talks about action 3.1, which is specifically about revising the ACE ordinance to clarify the scoring requirements.

So it really is an appropriate piece to talk about here if we're going to talk about the ACE program.

And I don't know if that's a requirement.

I'm just saying that

You know, this comp plan has been directed to be looking through an equity lens and an environmental lens.

Good afternoon.

I'm Scott Clark.

I'm the conservation program manager in community development.

The ACE ordinance that was developed back around 2000 addresses equity purely in terms of income.

So that was written back then.

It's been consistent throughout the program.

So the way it works is to prorate the amount

County.

Based on the value they're giving up in the easement.

So if they are at the lower end of the income scale, which is $55,000 AGI, then they're going to get 100% of the value of what they're giving up.

And then it gradually scales down from there.

As income goes up, that percentage goes down until you get to a point where

really worth their time.

In terms to get into the program.

So how have we done?

Have we analyzed our land use or the easement program of how we've done beyond just helping lower income?

But if we're going to look at it through an equity lens, we may want to take a peek at that.

I'd be curious to know how we've done in Albemarle.

The state looked at this in the past, and they called us out.

So I don't know if they did that with data or not.

I'm just curious about what that is, because if we're going to say we're going to look at something through an equity lens, and then we're going to

County,

with a lot of other

Well, I think we do need to clean up just for clarity, opinions about how easement programs and things like that impact when we start throwing around composite index and how it impacts revenue sharing and all that.

We just need to get on the same page.

We can't have different varying things out there of how it impacts that.

So I guess I'll leave it at that.

So it would delay me on 2-1 for 3-1.

That's the piece that's broken or dealing with the... It's revising the ace ordinance.

That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's the... That's

Thank you.

I lost my page.

Okay, so number two.

Having been involved since 2000 with the ACE program and seeing how it has evolved over the 20 years until it went into remission in 2020, something or other, it has been evolving carefully with the criteria being developed all along.

So it has not been stagnant, but I will say from a general service versus

um, cost per aspect.

If you're not having services needed on a piece of property due to its use or easement or lack of development, then the costs to the overall general fund are reduced.

And in addition to the natural resource protection, that was the reason why my two-time predecessor, Walter Perkins, who had been a supervisor from Whitehall for 16 years, actually led the effort in the late 90s to begin the ACE program.

and said it needs a million dollars a year in order to do anything because this is the way we're going to be able to keep costs down for the overall taxpayer and also preserve the area in the country for water protection and forestry and agriculture.

And so that was the basis of it.

and the matrix, the people for modest means, for people who have income that they can shelter through a tax credit, then the ACE program is not helpful to them and therefore they do not participate.

The grand majority, I think perhaps all, although I haven't gone back over the years of the participants, few were in the 100 percent, the grand majority in between 20 and 50 percent of the easement value.

and so and a few even in the last couple years who were in the five or ten percent and they said thank you very much but we'll donate instead and so this kind of process does protect the taxpayer and allows people to participate in either protection of their farm for in perpetuity who don't have the means to do

to take benefit of the tax credits which others are able to do.

So that's been the sort of general highlight of it.

I'm very much in favor of its continuance and look forward to the discussion to figure out how the two agencies, ACA and ACB, can go forward together and cover more of the

University Natural Heritage types of resources in our easements that then may be included right now.

I know there's always been a big debate on the committee about

and a request, actually by me and others, to use the DCR mapping for critical resources as a backdrop.

And that was not adopted yet, but it doesn't mean it can't be put in, which would broaden the aspect of what the protections are that would be protected by an easement and increase the value for the

across the water protection, zoning enforcement, all those kinds of things, the investment of staff resources that are going to be needed.

So that sort of covers the support for the continued work on updating all of the process for the easement program, but definitely to support funding it.

It has been really sad over the last several years that we have gotten nothing back from the state as a local match, even though the numbers of dollars even in the current administration is far greater than it's ever been for having local dollars back.

County would benefit from other counties not doing any match and so we would get four and five hundred thousand dollars instead of one hundred and fifty because we had the match available and were able to basically bring down money that caused tremendous savings for local taxpayers to achieve the same benefit.

So I will, the maximum lot size is an interesting concept I think it

brings back the clustering that we had for a number of years and for some reason has been told is not legitimate right now.

It's with an operation for at least a decade in Albemarle.

And so I don't know why.

That is an already showing that you can have small lots clustered around a very short street and then have residue lots of 80 and 100 acres to meet your subdivision in the rural area.

One backs up to me and it's fabulous the two large lots are protecting the streams that go through the property as well.

So there are a lot of benefits.

So those are all things to think about.

This is the 2.1 that we'll come back to.

Okay, so 2.1 we weren't supposed to come back to.

Thank you.

Supervisor Pruitt, we're going to stick to ACE for the moment.

So we all come to questions with different kind of presumptions and different fundamental lenses that I think we like to think through problems with.

So to kind of tee off how I'm going to talk about this issue, I want to just say, you know, the very first lens, the very first set of questions I always ask when I'm thinking about policy issues,

I always see things first and foremost in all parts of my life through a class lens.

That is kind of my core operating language with which I analyze any problem.

And then, of course, I account for all the other things.

I ask all the other same questions that we do.

I think about race equity.

I think about climate justice.

I think about what do members of my district say?

That all comes into play.

How different members of this board might prioritize those will vary by individual members of the board.

But for me, the very first thing I always think of is, what is the class impact of this?

How does this influence issues of socioeconomic status and how we sort people in our society?

and so with that kind of presented because I think this is going to come up a few times throughout how I talk about and discuss the rural area.

I would like to just say I had written down almost everything Supervisor Galway said because I think those are the right series of questions to ask about the ACE program and while I am supportive of it and concept I love

County, New

in a report.

I harken back to when we were talking about another thing that is a tax expense that we engage in, which is our elderly and disabled tax exemption.

We considered an incredibly modest change to that.

County.

We received two different rounds of very thorough analysis about what those households actually look like, right?

What is the impact on revenue?

What is the state of their assets?

What is the state of their income?

What does that distribution curve of that community look like?

Are we

Albemarle,

I would want to see, frankly, a similar kind of analysis to make sure I'm fully getting my head around the ACE program, because I'm willing to believe that it does all the things we say it's doing.

It does prioritize farms and parcels of modest means, and it is helping preserve this rural character.

I trust that when I'm told that, but we trust but verify when we're making decisions with the public's money.

And it does raise an alarm bell.

It raised an alarm bell to me when I hear that the only criteria is income.

It is quite common to have very modest income and quite robust assets.

We have, I mean, is a very challenging thing in policy in this community because many farmers might have income that is in the five digits and they might also have unencumbered assets that are in the tens of millions.

I think understanding how we think through this and setting aside farmers, but there are, we know what this community looks like.

We know that there are plenty of people who might have very little or no income who also have

is one of the most incredibly robust assets in holding.

So I think we need to make sure we're actually understanding, are we serving communities of modest means or are we serving people who are on social security and also have retirement accounts in the millions of dollars?

These are very different types of communities and I think this needs to be something

I even might entertain the fact that this board knows the answers to that and has discussed it previously in the long history with the ACE program.

I haven't.

I haven't.

I was not here when we had those discussions.

I'm not familiar with that kind of background.

And if I'm going to support the reactivation of the program and the funding of public dollars, then I would need that information.

So I apologize if that's going to be a little bit of make work, but I think it's really critical to being able to speak thoughtfully on whether or not this is doing what we're saying it's doing.

I've been on the ACE committee for the last two years and we haven't met, so that tells you how much I've been effective in that area.

I am interested in reactivating this program, but I think we need to be realistic.

I agree with Supervisor Pruitt.

this program has to help people when I say modest incomes, lower incomes without some other kind of, you know, they don't have tens of millions talked away somewhere.

So that all goes back to the scoring sheet and I think the scoring sheet that was used previously needs to be redone so that we can actually verify

who we would be potentially buying their assets from giving money to.

I did want to ask a question of Tanya.

What we would offer a landowner, would that be the same amount as what a developer would offer?

Maybe just a yes or no, shout out.

I would say no.

The easement versus the value of the land.

Scott.

So just to clarify two things, the scoring sheet by which an applicant is evaluated is scoring the property based on its conservation value.

So soils, footage of streams, many, many other factors that go into reading it in terms of its conservation value.

and the land value, the purchase price for the easement is a completely separate matter when we do the conservation ranking of all the candidates in a class in a given year and two or three will rise to the top as having the highest scores and then we evaluate those

as potential purchases and that's where the price comes in and that's that prorated table based on income.

I'm not sure we can answer the question is that the same they would be offered by a developer.

Okay, understood, understood.

Because I think it is important to help someone of lower income or to take in the

to take into consideration other aspects, be it race or whatever.

But I also feel it's important because these are taxpayers' dollars.

So the public is paying for this.

And I want to make sure that the taxpayers have the benefit of

having this land go into a conservation easement that is going to benefit the entire county and what I mean by that is that if you have a parcel of land that is adjacent to another conservation easement parcel of land

that's going to increase, that's going to give connectivity.

If you have, if there is a wildlife habitat, if there is a streams riparian areas that we need to protect, that's worth it.

If it's a piece of land that is out

and the middle of nowhere, so to speak.

It's surrounded by residential and it's not going to have a connectivity or big impact.

I've got a problem there using taxpayers' dollars for that purchase.

So I think the scoring sheet would come in very, would be very beneficial to make sure we give should the board decide in the future monies to where it would benefit.

And when we bring back more information to respond to your questions, we can definitely share that with you.

A lot of the factors that you just mentioned about adjacency to conservation land, stream frontage, soil quality, all those things feed into that scoring.

So a property that has those factors is going to score much higher and be more likely to get an offer of purchase.

And as you mentioned, the property that has

That's all.

County, New York.

and we're looking at it again and I do think it's a budget issue because it involves dedicating dollars to a program.

That makes it a budgetary issue for me.

But I will say that I have a, I'll just go through a couple of the notes that I made.

We talk about the program is to support family farms

I'd like to have a little bit more data about that.

I guess I'm not seeing family farms in Albemarle County.

What we think of normally as a family farm, I need more data about that.

What is the pressure on the properties that require setting aside funds for these specific properties?

What are the properties growing?

We know 95% of agricultural land in the county is used to grow hay or pasture for cows or horse grazing.

That's from Peter Lynch, our assessor, who said that toss.

So I'm just wondering, and what's the definition of low income?

That gets back to questions that several of you all have had, or modest incomes.

I need to understand what that is.

Are these folks threatened with hardships?

Are we assuming that poor people

will just automatically develop?

And what do we mean by modest or poor people?

I'm really questioning a lot.

And I thought, to be honest with you, that there were federal and state programs that would benefit this concern that we have.

There was in 2012 a JLARC report about this.

And I haven't heard any reference or any discussion about the recommendations from the JLARC study.

and I have real concerns about whether the ACE program really is equitable, is providing equity for our community.

That was addressed back in 2021 by the Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources in the Northman administration.

I think looking at some of that information could help us.

because it would bring different perspectives as opposed to just what we have always assumed this program does for us.

At the end of the day, I have no idea how I'll come down on it, but I need more information before I can just say absolutely.

I would support funding for the ACE program to be what I'm thinking I'm hearing is a line item that we would be doing every year, putting money into every year.

I have to talk, think about that.

Um, I guess the, and I'm just reading my notes and I apologize for stopping here a minute.

25% of the rural area is already protected in permanent easements.

We are in Albemarle County number three in Virginia for the amount of property in conservation easements.

That's pretty

That's something to applaud.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing.

I'm celebrating that.

Having said that, and you all have heard me say this many times right up here at this diast, when we've done something for so many years without really looking at it carefully and thoughtfully to just continue something and assume that what we've been doing is working the way we think it was working,

20 years ago, I just have to have more doubt.

I have to understand it better.

And I was just looking to see here what my notes.

It would seem like Albemarle is an outlier in the state.

And if we're an outlier, then I'd like to know

why we're an outlier compared to the other jurisdictions, some of which have, obviously, an ACE program.

And I'd like to understand better the Virginia position.

And maybe that's harder for you all to get to, but I think the JLARC report and some of this other information gets to that.

And I will just, well, here, let me see.

I have notes everywhere, and I apologize for that.

will agree with Ned and I will say there's a lot of confusion around the composite index and ACE program and how our schools are funded and how it affects.

We had an email from Greg Kampner that actually was pretty clear about that back in

21.

So I'm just saying that we all need to be on the same page eventually about the composite index because the school division believes one thing, some of us believe something else, and I think that we need to settle that issue as well at the next time when it comes back to us to talk about.

We know that the county transfers to the city the revenue sharing and that revenue sharing is not calculated in the county's composite index.

I mean that's, we know that.

So I'm not saying any of this is bad or good, I just think we all have the same set of facts so we can make decisions.

And I would like to talk about it further.

so Jim what else do you need me to I think we're gonna we're gonna I'm gonna comment and then we'll go on to the next time we're good and we'll go around so just to give my sense of this I am in favor of reactivating the ACE program I feel like you know we put it on pause a couple years ago there were some issues about whether there were properties at that time or funding at that time for

County, New York.

and so we will probably need to revisit that to get to the point where we're comfortable understanding what the purpose is, which my understanding has described before that the purpose is about protecting these parcels and so the scoring is related to the value of these parcels, the value of the easement

County.

That said, I understand the concern that the word equity is perhaps misused.

It then is intended to help those landowners who are unable to help get help simply by the donation of their easement.

We also should revisit and settle once and for all my understanding on the composite index and effects because land use is very different.

Land use taxation is very different from

permanent conservation easements which permanently changed the value of the property and therefore now don't treat it that property any differently for the composite index than if we're not under land use or conservation either.

and also similarly reduces the value which reduces the revenue sharing potential there.

So I'm in favor of this but I will say that you know when it comes down to making budget decisions which we've heard a lot about I don't see the comprehensive plan as asking for a budget commitment which is I think appropriate but I would need to know what the opportunities are a little bit better for match and and the needs are

County, a little bit better for properties that we can identify that we really think are important for conservation so that we can know what we're funding.

That is a budget discussion, not a discussion for today, in my opinion.

I just want to make sure leaving the discussion on number two, that the staff is clear and certainly we can meet after today and clarify and circle back to the board.

But there are board members that had specific questions about the program.

Is the board expecting us to come back with more details on the ACE program and how it works, the criteria and such, set aside some time for that, for the board's consideration

separate from the budget discussion.

Very good.

I work with Ms.

Scott Clark had made a presentation to the board two years ago, maybe.

Right.

Right.

Chair, if I had a quick question, I'm just thinking about what we're asking staff to do here.

And I'm also trying to put this in the context of a AC 44 process that it sounds like we're asking to be continuously contingent on us getting more information to make a decision on this action item number two, right?

And I'm wondering if there's a way that we can conceive of what we're trying to get this information from that does not

Albemarle, Charlottesville, Rivanna,

be an action item that comes out of the comprehensive planning process rather than a roadblock in the comprehensive plan.

I agree.

I think that if we have a sense that people are just worried about the budget numbers, then we can revisit and understand that better.

We'll take it as an action item to go back and sit down and work through the comments that were made today and then we'll look at your existing committed meetings and examine how that might look coming back.

was asked about the money a developer pays versus an easement of value.

Even during the height of the development crush pre-recession, $25,000 per development right was the most the county had ever paid.

So the only one that was hired due to state match of $500,000 was the land around Beaver Creek Reservoir that was put in for the Clayton easement.

a developer who would buy the property takes ownership of the property.

The easement person keeps owning the property, keeps maintaining the property, keeps paying taxes on the property.

They just have an easement on the property that says, you're not going to build those 17 houses that I could have had if our easement wasn't on.

That's all.

We did ours in a separate process back in the 90s, so it's not part of any of this.

But anyway, they're two totally different categories that we need to keep straight.

Thank you.

And before going on, I'll just remind people, I think that riparian easements are part of the environmental stewardship chapter.

So this may have an opportunity to discuss some aspects of easements again.

in that context.

Then I would suggest that we now address action 2.1 if we can, because that's another major one which is implementing a maximum lot size for development right lots to reduce the acreage used for residential lots compared to the 31 acre maximum for five lots currently.

You showed us the examples.

I believe that's what you're looking at at this point is whether that's something the board supports.

I mean I'll be curious to hear what other folks have to say.

It seems if you're going to, I mean the point of the row area is to preserve it and not allow it to develop that this seems to be a tool to do that or a way to do that.

and it's an ordinance you put in place.

We don't have to pay for it.

So it's a way to achieve what we're saying we want to achieve in the bigger picture.

So I don't have any issue with it from that standpoint.

I think some of the things that may rise up to be issues I'll bring up at a different point

I think it's an excellent idea.

I mentioned earlier that it's going to be a little trickier than it looks on flat because of topography, and there may be some loss of development rights because of that, but that's okay.

Because when you buy something that's steep or swampy, you need to understand it's not the same as a flat field.

And that's the owner's responsibility.

It's not the county's responsibility to maximize absolutely everything.

The one thing I had on here, when the down zoning happened in 1980,

The exceptions to get it passed were 21 acre minimum is the now rural area minimum.

But five two acre lots were the exceptions.

I don't know quite how it gravitated from that to all these six acre and 25 acre things.

But if this is a step in the right direction to get it back where it belongs so that there's maximum open space left and we don't have

these 21 or 25-acre front yards, which is what nobody in 1980 anticipated.

Everybody said, oh, those are all going to be cultivated.

And if there's land around the houses, then the neighboring farmer will be able to make use of all those.

Well, that has not panned out, because now we have 25-acre front yards.

And that's got stuff.

Could we actually have that example slide on the screen?

like my peers I think I find this it seems like an easy decision right we we want I've said before I think every every large residential community or large residential property that goes into the the rural area is a bit of a policy failure right we're actively trying to prevent that

were actively trying to make it so that while we keep the rural area amenable to people who live there, we are trying to discourage residential use of the rural area and make it so that it is affordable and also desirable to live in the urban development area.

So yeah, this is like a free way to get there.

And if we're not seeing a major political opposition, I'm not clear on why we wouldn't kind of reduce the residential use of the rural area through the subdivision reform.

The only thing I would add is every time I try and get my hand or head around the acreage and subdivision requirements in the rural area, I feel like a dummy.

I look at this and I'm very confused.

I don't know.

And I hate to, I'm not entirely sure what it is that we're agreeing on here other than is reducing the overall residential usage of large rural subdivisions.

The actual rules that go into play with that are

I find Byzantine and I would be surprised how many members of the public might understand it better.

But if you think there is an easy one paragraph explanation for how it works currently and what this change proposes, I would appreciate that.

You're not the only one.

I looked at this and I said, what?

But I do have a better understanding that I've spoken with staff.

And my understanding is, and please correct me if I misinterpret it, but it really does, by clustering the smaller acreage,

It allows a larger piece to be part of our, frankly, climate action plan because it preserves this whole area, which preserves wildlife, which preserves the habitat, riparian, et cetera, et cetera.

So this is really, I think, beneficial rather than, for example, if you took the one on the right and you spread out those four acres all over the place, then that would destroy a lot of natural habitat.

in wildlife, I think.

That would cause them to go elsewhere.

And OK, am I getting pushed back already?

Just wanted to offer a little clarification if I could.

Louder.

I think we're talking about two different things.

Louder.

Speak louder.

OK, sorry.

There you go.

Face into it.

I think we're talking about two different things.

OK.

One is this lot size issue, which is

on the scale of things a tweak to how subdivisions are done now.

We are looking into setting a maximum lot size instead of just a minimum.

So in this example, the development lots would use 20 acres instead of 31.

So that's purely a lot size issue.

It doesn't change the amount of development.

It doesn't really change the form of development except to say that we don't use up quite as much land on

Colustering Ordinance for the rural areas that are called rural preservation developments.

but that's a form of subdivision that allows you to take these small lots, maybe from a few parcels that are adjacent to each other and group those together and then have one remaining piece that's under easement.

So that's a different form of subdivision than what you're seeing on screen here.

If you all are interested, we have a couple of slides to explain that separate program as well, but we can come back with more information.

Again, those are two different things and two different forms of subdivision

Okay, so which one?

This is the one in front of you.

It was what we would call conventional subdivision.

So this is how most subdivisions in the Rural Area happen is basically what you're seeing on the left is the fact that the smaller lots can total up to 31 acres and everything else gets cut into 21s.

Well, the one on the left, sorry, I'm confusing things worse, the one on the left is where we are now.

the one on the right is a proposed tweak to where we are now for conventional subdivisions.

Okay.

All right, so just to clarify, the slides you were just looking at are both of those scenarios, the existing and the possible were about conventional subdivision.

And what that was showing was a single parcel being completely converted from an open space or farm use into two sizes of residential lots, small ones and big ones, two acres and 21.

The Clustering Program, or the Rural Preservation Development, option for subdivision, which is a different form of subdivision that is permitted out of developer's request.

attempts to get away from taking entire property, especially an entire property made of multiple parcels, and dividing the entire large property into nothing but residential uses.

So, for example, here's a property made up of three large parcels.

and it could be divided as you see here.

The red lots are the small development right lots, the two acres.

And then the large ones in gray are the 21 acre lots.

The roads over there on the left where the purple arrow is.

So you get a very long road to access all of these lots and all of these small lots are being created on their partial origin.

So they're distributed back for a second.

they're distributed all across the property again the entire property is being converted to residential lots and that northeastern corner you see up there is actually up on top of a ridge so those lots are up high and very visible and take a lot of impacts to slopes to get there this is the clustering option that we currently have the rural preservation development what you see here is that all of the lots but one

have been converted to small lots, so you take up your total of small lots and 21s at it, 20 or whatever that is, 19 of them go over in a group, in a cluster, and one remains as a farm parcel that goes under a conservation easement.

So this is just a different optional form of development in the rural areas.

Again, we don't see a lot of these anymore, only a few in the last decade or more.

But the advantage here, we can go to the next slide, is that again, for the developer's perspective, you get a shorter road, also helps with water quality.

The stream is on the preservation tract.

The preservation development has kept those lots off the top of the mountain.

where they originally located up in that northeast corner.

So by grouping all of the lots, but one, as small lots in one area, you reduce the overall impact.

You still have just as many lots, just as many houses.

The number of lots being developed has not changed, but the area effect it has.

And theoretically, someone could farm or manage for forest on that preservation tract.

So this is an optional form of subdivision.

So you all have probably seen clusters as well in the development area.

Many other communities have ways of clustering subdivisions like this to reduce their overall impact area.

Jody, Florida Community Development Director.

This is a very complicated topic and it is only part of

the entire comprehensive plan, but it's especially particular to environmental sustainability.

So what I'm wondering is if given the feedback from the board today on the ACE program questions and some of this further information and some of these questions,

might we be able to package this for the next time round?

Because there are a whole lot of other things in this rural chapter that I know you all want to get to.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Short, if you want to go out, you want to go back and put the screen again to help me.

Oh, there we go.

Now we've got it.

Thank you.

Yes, I would say that I do, this is an example, let me back up a minute.

This is an example of re-looking at what we've always done in saying that we need to tweak it, in my opinion.

And I'm talking about parcel fragmentation and absolutely.

So I do support this change.

Now what it might look like

That's, I guess, another topic for, and that's not my expertise to be perfectly honest with you, but I agree, yes, and I agree absolutely with Anne.

Huge front yards are not what we meant to.

Maybe it's just the invention of the riding lawnmowers that made this easier to happen, or financial resources to buy riding lawnmowers, but

but just big yards are not what I call good conservation with properties and certainly, and I'm sure they treat them with, a lot of them treat them with chemicals, not everybody, but so I'm just saying this, I am, yes, it's a word of this and I'll just let it go with that.

And I guess that was the only question you had right now and we're good.

I'm going to be probably the outlier here.

I support the notion I think that the examples given are kind of simplistic and that the example given for clusters is more detailed and shows that you have pressures to put the parcels sometimes at the back of the lot, the front of the lot.

People play things with

County, New York.

they're doing with those other lots that then create these huge questions of what are they going to do with the other 20 acres or 19 acres if they really only need two for their house when it comes to whether you have six acres or an average of six acres for your five development rights versus only allowing two my concern is that yeah it is a de facto

getting rid of development rights because it would be more difficult for some people to find a way to fit a development in on the parcel if they're only allowed to use two acres than if they could use a little bit more.

I guess I'm a little nervous about it and I don't know whether there are any mechanisms, I would like to ask whether there are any mechanisms where a parcel owner, if they wanted to use a development right, that didn't quite work.

could come to the board or otherwise ask for a waiver to allow, you know, whatever they might need to make a lot that uses a development right, obviously not avoiding the issues that I think we're doing a good job with in preventing people to build on slopes and in places where they shouldn't be building next to streams, whatever.

And to be clear, right now on the standard one, you use up to 31 acres.

Right.

What we're asking is, can we actually reduce that number?

I think we can.

Whether we end up at two or three or four is the minimum.

I don't know.

We'll have to work on the ordinance when we get there.

But at least it sounds like there's a consensus for the board.

and putting the residue back to 80 acres, which is where it was originally.

And now it's down to 40, it looks like.

So there are ways to do that.

And Jim, I really appreciate that because that was very helpful.

And I think what you mentioned is very worthwhile.

The other thing I would just say quickly, and I don't want to open another one, but I think the cluster piece is

is great.

How we get that to happen, I don't know, but that makes a lot of sense to me.

Are there any communities that are considered best practice when it comes to this type of

Challenge that we could look at or have looked.

I'm just throwing that out there.

I'm always saying that, you know, there are other communities that I'm sure are doing things better.

We're not always the best at everything.

And maybe it would be helpful.

I don't, but you all have a limited amount of time and I recognize that too.

I invite everyone to come take a tour of Tana's Woods with me because that's the living cluster right about the corner.

if it's okay I think we can move on to question four and at the same time perhaps we can combine since it talks about 5.1 and 5.2 which are adaptive reuse of existing structures in rural communities for small-scale uses and 7.2 and 7.4 which are part of managing non-residential land uses in the rural area with respect to small-scale uses.

We don't have in there anything about the

and so I would assume that that's a separate question that we won't address in these comments, but we may when we come back and look at the objectives.

So this point we're looking at criteria for planning rural communities and small-scale uses.

You've listed quite a few in the introductory materials of just minor tweaks from what is in existing 2015

So I know that the, well, let me pull up five of those specific things.

Like I don't, when it says, if any, like additional considerations or criteria, I mean, I did not have any that came to mind that I'm like, oh, this needs to be in there.

But there's also not, you know, conditions and criteria necessarily listed out for me to look at and go, well, what's missing?

So to ask me what's missing when I don't know what's there was an interesting

I mean, some's there, small scale professional offices.

I mean, there's some stuff there.

What I think gets at this were the planning commission.

On the planning commission page, it said the commission recommended more specifically listing out which land uses would be appropriate to consider the future planning.

Like, I agree with that.

And then what the evaluation criteria would be.

So in all of the conversations about, well, if there's going to be, I thought there was another place that there was a note on that from the commission that I'm not seeing or I did not highlight it.

I think anything that we can do to identify what we think of, not just development like houses, but what could happen in the rural area that, yes, thought of what those considerations could be shouldn't be one blanket piece.

This is similar to my comments about activity centers in the development area.

An activity center on Pantops is very different than one over on Rio 29.

and how that can change given that difference in location exists in my mind in the rural area as well.

So I think you'd get at that train of thought with the interchanges, not to introduce that here, but Shadwell and 107 are completely different.

So those planning would take us off different paths

So I think it would be the same case in the uses for the rural area around.

Something right in close to the development area is going to be thought of and looked at differently than something that's out on a mountain somewhere.

But there's also been great thinking of the, I forgot the name of the project, but out by 114, the company that stores, basically they store all their

It's not landscape, it's probably an understatement.

But they have workers show up, they get stuff stored there, they leave for the day, they come back, that got approved last year.

That's a perfectly appropriate use out in the rural area.

The community was all in support of it, the neighbors, it made it look better out there by the VDOT depot or whatever you want to call it.

So it's like how do we get at allowing or encouraging that type of thing where it's not just one-ups,

and I mean, maybe that's how we have to deal with it.

Like, oh, that's a good idea.

I'm thinking of the airport, the folks that bought the house by the airport.

They're expanded next door to the lot.

They're turning that into offices.

It all makes sense with what they're trying to do.

So we might as well try to encourage that and to allow it.

But I don't have recommendations on, oh, I don't want us going into all we have to identify rural zones like we do activity centers.

but light industrial uses, I think, is scary language for rural, for folks that think of rural area, but light industrial is what that landscape and company would fall under.

So we might as well start talking about some of those type of things and saying, yeah, this is appropriate and where do we get at that?

I mean, I don't disagree with what's in there.

I don't think

anything listed like the small-scale professional offices, you know, adaptive reuse of historic structures.

I mean that's all good, but it just seems like we've had some real instances, especially just given in the last year or so, of things that are appropriately placed.

The impacts are low.

They help the local economy.

They help local business.

and we should be doing what we can to try to help that along with the cop plan.

If you want to go back to your page, did I answer the question or get at it?

What additional should be at 7-2 and 7-4?

I think that falls right in line with what I'm thinking.

3 is the interchanges.

That wasn't on our list, 7-1 and 7-2.

The resilience hubs, I think structures that are out there, especially when we have emergencies that we have to figure that out, but I don't think we're going out to build things to create those.

We're going to take advantage of what exists now and how can we help that along.

So no, I don't see any additional items in there other than to try to encourage some

Organic things that have happened already that would make sense in the rural area.

Thank you.

Let me go back to the right sheet here.

Okay, so 5.1.

I think that these are examples of what we already have, and I'm not sure what update means.

So we already have medical offices in Free Union and Earleysville, and we have country stores in all three of those places plus Free Union.

And so these are the existing villages and crossroad places where 100 years ago everybody went to get their stuff.

And as long as it's in that parameter, then that's okay.

And if update, what does update mean?

Okay, go ahead.

Sure.

Those uses are not allowed in the rural areas zoning district currently.

So it would be to allow some of those uses in existing rural communities.

They're pre-existing.

Certainly not for union for sure.

There is no commercial for union.

But anyway, we'll deal with that.

I'm not going to argue with you about that.

5.2.

Adaptive reuse as an excuse to take something that should be respected as a historic property and then use it as an income producing.

Oh, I'm going to save it by completely obliterating it.

That's something that gnaws at me.

So every time I see adaptive reuse as something important, I'm going to be asking why.

but these small scale uses as what we have today.

Yes, but I remember reading to my horror in the survey stuff people were saying, oh, we should have drive cleaners and we should have EV charger things and I'm going, no, because drive cleaners are full of chemicals and you just can't go dumping that in a place where there is nothing but drinking water and septic.

was very limited.

It's all going to really depend on what the next phase of the writing is as to whether I can weigh in on that.

The other one that you asked about was seven.

Someone in our correspondence made a really good suggestion for

The Seventh, and that is that these are land use planning things and therefore should really be part of the number one rural area plan rather than being dealt with separately where we're not going to give it the right attention and or public input input.

into these things.

I will certainly go through super quickly here.

7.1 schools and firehouses, those are what we should be using and the derecho way back in whenever it was, 2011 I guess.

There was a big focus in the after action report about improving the facilities at our schools and firehouses to be covered, be able to be emergency shelters in the country.

I still support

the legacy commercial uses I would only consider them one at a time rather than trying to reopen that can of worms because we had it went round and round and round about five years ago on that and did not get anywhere because each of the 19 parcels is so different from the others so I think if something comes up then we need to deal with it as a single application 7.4 okay yeah

I guess getting, having that part of the, what the locality, what the people living around their need is part of that 1.1 or whatever it was earlier.

Human health, property values, and ecosystem health from the impacts of extraction, those are contradictory.

and so I don't think if we're going to mention any of those they need to be mentioned separately so that we don't say oh well we're going to make you a little bit sick so we can get after whatever in this mine over here or we're going to ruin the quietude of these people so we can put a data center right there next to you because you're just a few people and you're in the country and so too bad.

So economic value of mineral resources goes along in my mind with

economic value of industrial uses.

And we have to be super careful and respectful for the 49% of all the people who absolutely this who do live in the rural area.

And they have rights to 7.6.

I will remind people that in 2015.

No.

Yes, 2015.

Jose master plan did a whole additional effort based upon the Nancy

thing at the direction of the board of supervisors at the time.

And nothing has changed in my view on that.

So I would push back on trying to push forward, move forward anything there because a year and a half or so at least was spent doing that work.

A proposal to come in to take the lumber yard and turn it into fashion square mall and we know how great that would have been.

Another great big empty building.

We have a lumber yard.

It is a heavy industry.

It is very supportive of the local forestry businesses here and thriving business.

So those kinds of things need to be not undercut by something that is somehow higher in the interest level from the venture capitalists from out of state.

And I will stop there.

I beg the board's patience, I want to kind of introduce this with a very brief vignette to kind of capture again a framework that I like to think about this issue with.

There was

recently, before the Planning Commission, a proposal for the Shule Garage.

And this was very controversial amongst members of the public.

This body got one to two dozen pieces of feedback that were almost entirely negative.

in opposition to this repair center that was going to be in the Keene area.

It received unanimous opposition when it went to the planning commission.

It was ultimately withdrawn.

And again, we're looking at about maybe a dozen people coming out in opposition to it.

and I'm going to cite to an unusual source, but I will let you know that the very next day after it was denied, there was a thread on the Scottsville Facebook page in which 90 different people responded in outrage that this was denied because they were expressing a kind of continued frustration at underinvestment in the south side, a continued lack of service provision and a continued lack of employment opportunities in their community.

and I don't want to kind of in this opportunity weigh in on whether or not I would have voted in favor of that garage.

But my point that I'm trying to get at is that there is I think a pretty significant voice that we are insulated from on the board of supervisors of rural working in middle class people who have lived in this community and wish to remain in this community as rural residents.

and who want to have some access to services, amenity and employment opportunities in the place they live.

I think to a lot of the positions that this board takes regarding the rural area and I do think we need to grapple with this a little seriously.

I appreciate that we have taken a bit of a turn from talking about crossroad communities because as has been pointed out by other members of this board that's a very specific framework that we created for vernacular architecture preservation and a few other tools we're trying to import it into a future-looking concept.

and so I think the pivot into, you know, let's name this a new thing.

Let's talk about how we want to talk about non-residential uses in rural focal points in rural communities.

I appreciate that.

And I have been, when we talked about rural crossroads previously, now when we talk about rural communities in the comprehensive plan, I continue to think that we do need to actively work to locate and encourage non-residential uses, including line industrial and including commercial.

in a very limited and constrained way that supports those local communities.

There is a photo in here in the package that we received that I am delighted by because I was going to bring it up either way, which is there is a commercial facility in the Samuel Miller District that includes Dr. Ho's Pizza.

We would never as a body, I think, approve that, and there would be outrage if it came for us today.

That is a huge community hub.

That is a major point of social gathering.

That is where people have their, you know,

I'm from a small rural town.

I recently took my husband to my hometown and I showed him, hey, you can still see where the trophies from Little League games and where my classes cheerleading team have a signed photo up there.

These are community gathering places.

They're social hubs.

They're places where people work.

They're places where people gather.

They work as a third space for young people.

They work as a place where young people get employment.

County, and

County stores that are in the rural area that have been grandfathered in after the down zoning.

Then what we do is we kind of de facto prevent any such uses in the south side, which had a greater level of deprivation during that time, a greater level of underinvestment in that time, and do not have those pre-existing uses.

There are not such uses in significant parts of my district because, frankly, there was not that money flowing into that district at the time.

I like this idea.

I don't know that I can get much more granular on what specific uses, but I think identifying areas, identifying small area plans that we can move forward with that.

And actually, this is the challenging thing, right?

So when we talked about the crosswalk for zoning generally in our urban area chapter, I had some concerns that when we focus that in our CACs

is actually kind of has an anti-democratizing factor because we don't have this big inflection point where the community can come out.

I have a little bit of concern if we're going to do this with small area plans that again you have an anti-democratizing factor where it becomes a higher information engagement opportunity and so we're going to see the same cadre of people who we keep seeing because it's going to be only the people who are following on engage Albemarle.

and we're not going to capture these people who we don't hear from as much on the board who might see a greater desire for some commercial uses.

But I do think there needs to be a space for this.

There needs to be a certain amount of oversight that we exercise in locating them and controlling the type of use.

I take the point, right, a laundromat

should never be in the rural area because that uses a tremendous amount of water from our aquifers and it results in things leaching into water supplies on the back end.

Dangerous.

Restaurants, I just talked about them, but I recognize that's going to be challenging because those are big draws on the aquifers.

I think these are also the uses that we are going to need and so we need to figure out how we're going to control and

County.

We need to be really thoughtful and forward-laning as a county and how we're identifying who we're drawing that input from because I would be concerned about how we would move forward with that whether or not we're actually hearing from the same voices we always do.

I know this is something we're very thoughtful about in the AC44 process, and there was a really excellent concerted effort from the engagement office at making sure we're bringing in kind of not the same cohort of voices that we always hear from.

I would hope we'd address this with the same level of scrutiny, really making sure we're pulling from communities that we don't hear from as much.

that may be using novel engagement methods, maybe soliciting feedback that doesn't involve someone coming out to a meeting.

Maybe we can meet them where they're at, either remotely or in person.

So that's kind of where I'm at with that.

I have some of my concerns and I echo what Supervisor Pruitt has said is being able to give some services to the folks in the rural areas.

I know in Scottsville and maybe some of the other areas and I know in my area.

when you don't have some of the basic services where people can go to that causes additional trips, traffic, et cetera, et cetera.

What I would like on 5.1, I know we're talking about specific things, I would like to see more of a balance and flexibility in our

and

like not electrical, not electrical, but there was a something we approved that no one had thought of, but yet we approved it as a body.

We don't know some of the things that we'll be coming up with in the future.

We don't know what people will come to us and say, this would really be a good thing to have in this area.

We don't know that.

My concern overall for this plan is that we do have a balance.

We do have some flexibility.

I would like to see us look at things maybe on a case by case basis or at least staff look at that to see what's the feasibility.

For example, a laundromat in the southern area.

No, maybe we wouldn't want that in the rural area because of the fact that it uses a lot of water.

I do disagree with the restaurants though if it's an existing restaurant or

and an existing facility, not going to use more water.

And people in the rural areas are asking for places to be able to go to or be able to go eat.

I mean, right now everyone's traveling all over the place.

I do want to address 7.3 because I want to make sure if we're, and I know we're going to get into this and it's going to be hot and heavy, but

Industrial uses, is there a way to eliminate or eliminate the size of data centers?

We are actually in a separate thing.

We're in the process of bringing you a resolution for intent to study data centers and to develop some regulations.

Okay, that is perfect.

That is perfect.

So in going over, okay, we're at seven, we're in the sevens.

Yeah, I would like to see like in 5.1, I'd like to see more

is a small-scale professional offices.

Well, what about if there's some other kind of an office or some other kind of a business?

I don't want people to be eliminated automatically.

I'd like to see maybe it go through staff and they say, you know, this is worth looking at.

That's something I would like to see to give people more services.

As far as

We're talking about country stores and rural communities that may not be a country store, may be some other kind of business that gives people the opportunity to

Perch is something that they don't have to go in town for that is not a big, that doesn't pull resource water, things like that.

I'm glad the data center is going to be addressed.

That's of importance to me.

Yeah, 7.1, utilizing existing buildings and community facilities, totally support as resilience hubs.

Yeah, we're going to get into the Shadwell-Yancy thing, I think.

It is a separate issue, right?

It's planned, yeah.

We're going to get to it.

Yeah, 7.2.

I do like the community input because it's

and but a way to reach out to people because we can't we can't just keep hearing for the same people we need to hear from more people so how do we do that I'm not quite sure I know I talked to a lot of people I think all the board we talk email to a lot of people but how do you get across to more people to see what they really want or what they're willing to have what they feel they need so that would be good other than that I think I'm

Good.

Thank you.

Sure.

I'll try to be sort of quick about this because, but I really agree.

I want to start with Mike's comments.

I really agree with Mike.

We need to recognize that we hear from a certain segment of our community, but there's a whole part of our community that we don't hear from.

And when I knock on doors in my rural area,

I find a lot of the folks that live in these houses don't even live here 365 day that it is a second house.

they have their own private plane they're flying in and they're flying out somehow or another and that's fine and it's all fine and good having said that we have to figure out how our regular folks and I use that I feel like I'm a regular folk I drive my own car I do my own laundry I don't have a small commercial I mean a small private plane and I'd like to go to restaurants

I'd like to be able to have some services in my area, right?

Even if it is the rural area, there's some services that would be nice to have.

And I think we have to think about those folks.

Just say, how do you all want to present that to us?

But I agree completely with Mike.

We're missing hearing from the working folks like I used to be before I retired.

and they have a need to have some restaurants and places to go.

They have to be everywhere, doesn't mean that we have to approve everything, but there is a balance that I think we have to think about.

Let me just go on a minute.

We talk a lot about historic and cultural.

I think one of these, we're talking about here historical, right?

because I don't want to go off track too much.

But is that in 7.2?

Yeah.

So help me understand the definition of historic.

So are we talking about, what are we protecting?

I guess is my question.

Are we protecting the 1932 homes on the Shenandoah Parkway?

you know we talk about those at one point that we lost I mean I'm just or are we talking about the privately owned 1860 plantation homes there's a difference for me so it helped me and and I don't expect you to help to say today but I need to better understand what we are protecting and let's see

and I guess that's, I'm not sure whether I've even answered your question or not, 7.2 rural areas, small scale uses, community, but I don't have anything other than those comments I think to add too because you were asking if there was anything else we were missing and I do think we're missing what Mike addressed was the piece for the folks in our community who were just the regular old folks that

and you're asking us whether we agree that we want to review an update.

And I guess my answer is yes.

I don't see anything in here that I would not want us to be doing as part of our comprehensive plan in terms of looking at what's possible, particularly in the way it's worded here, which is a lot of reuse of existing structures, adaptation to existing structures.

The only place where I have some pause in terms of the legal import of a comprehensive plan is when we start saying that we're going to do this for small scale and in some cases the low impact and some other words like that that I don't know what they mean exactly and so I'm a little nervous that you know once we put it in the comprehensive plan that that it's going to be seen as approving a small scale use whatever that is and it's not my understanding is it's to review and look at these

and I think that's a good use of a comprehensive plan.

Did anybody else have any comment about moving some of those things from 7.24 or whatever to put up in the number one rural area plan?

As that was some email we got suggested that.

I thought that was such a good idea.

So you're saying just can't find it.

To move 7.2 to 1.

Yeah, when they're reviewing the rewrite to see whether everything belongs where it is.

If we go back to the guidance slide to see where we're at before I can make a suggestion, if I would.

So at this point, we still haven't really discussed about updating the county zoning ordinance related to rural area uses, whether this chapter provides sufficient recommendations.

But even rather than going there, I'm going to ask if people could answer that question in the context of, let's just look at each page, because I think if we do like three pages, this is all it would take.

County, Charlottesville

are there additional comments that people want to make that haven't been made about this page, knowing that we're going to go now to the next page, the next page, and actually four pages slides of objectives, if you will.

So I will turn to the supervisor Galloway.

You just want me to generally react here.

Do you have anything on these?

I don't think there's anything missing here.

I think some of the comments that I was at gets to what is outlined already in one one in some ways.

I've lost the, when Supervisor Malik brought up the movement of the one to the other, I'd actually reacted positively to that initially thinking, well that makes some sense, but I've lost

I didn't write it down, so I'm just going to assume that it still made some little bit of sense there.

But I don't think there's anything here, and I'm just going to like, well, what the objective is, and then the actions trying to achieve the objective seem to be in line.

Is that what you're asking?

And I don't think that anything is necessarily missing here.

and I think 1-1 especially is attempting to get at some of the things that you heard from the planning commission which I agree with.

Thank you, Supervisor Malek.

Okay, great.

So in the second bullet, I will bring back again, healthy water supplies should be the first priority in

because that is what the whole county and urban area is depending on.

I'm glad to see it in there, but I think it should be higher up.

And the map of the rural area is focused conservation, the critical resources from DCR, 1.2, location standards, the solar ordinance is incredibly important because of

The detail required in order to be able to protect all the things that we're supposed to be protecting in the rural area and we do not want to make the same oh sure why not attitude that other counties have because now they're trying to clean up things that have happened so I just put solar ordinance under 1.2 as a way to

I just had one question regarding, it's actually on page five, the support for low impact uses to encourage the economic viability of rural properties to help keep those rural properties intact.

It is not in one of the objectives but is just meant to be overarching guidance for looking at the zoning ordinance update for what types of uses might be appropriate.

Got it.

And that would include a myriad of things.

That would include myriad of things.

Got it.

Thank you.

So I don't really have any other comments on what we're seeing here.

I do look at that one, two, three, four, that fifth bullet, and maybe we've already addressed this.

A percentage includes an overall percentage target for land conservation in the county.

We've already... Yeah, that's been remembered.

Well, it's here.

I just want to make sure we were on the set.

Let's go to the next page.

I don't have any additional comments.

All right, so now I know it's sort of rushed on you, but I'm hoping that people have done their homework.

So if you have any additional thoughts on objectives two or three, we've got them before us.

You've got time to talk.

I don't know if it's relevant here.

I'll just call out the, because this I did agree with, where the PC was having a conversation on

It's under the section Land Conservation and Keep and Rural Area Parcels Large and Unfragmented.

The Commission noted that different types of conservation easements protect different resources and that conservation should be focused on areas identified in the Biodiversity Action Plan.

I think this has been mentioned before.

That would be addressed in looking at the scoring requirements and making sure that they... So wouldn't necessarily be in any of these actions or objectives?

Okay, so not in two, though.

Well, in light of the conversation about the rural preservation developments and this cluster piece, it kind of tweaked my interest

or maybe go, okay, well, we want some ability here to make it even better for what we want to do.

So if that's coming back per what Jody spoke to, then I'd be interested in hearing more about, okay, well, what do we need from the state or what are we hoping for that would allow, what does that allow us to do?

I mean, I made a connection of we haven't been really doing these.

is there an obstacle as to why, et cetera.

So I don't fully understand or that's just a side conversation.

Ace, I know that we've dealt with that.

Oh, sorry, Supervisor Malik, I did skip you.

I apologize, thank you.

Okay, I've talked about 2.1 already, and the 2.2, the old language from the 80s was residential in the rural areas associated with the primary uses of agriculture and forestry.

It is now, there was a big fight every five years to keep that language in there.

Now it seems to have gone away and now it's just open residential.

So I'll just throw that in there for future consideration.

2.3, rare habitats and species during the special permit process.

This is a very high priority for me and I think that the biodiversity impact should be part of the site review.

because it's been ignored at site review ever since the biodiversity action plan was adopted and then 20 years before that since it was written.

So I hope that we will make some progress this time.

2.4, I don't know why we need legislation frankly because we already have the clustering ability so somebody can later on explain that to me because that's been a confusion for me and I'll stop there.

I guess throughout all of these there needs to be a lot of coordination with the NGOs who are already working in this space and no need to duplicate what's been going on to make sure that if to help participate in outreach to make sure we're reaching more of the

on access landowners now to make sure they know about the opportunities to participate in all these different programs.

I think that will be a additive effect if more people are working together on the same things.

And we'd already talked about the sale of tax credit on donated easements as the way that people of higher than modest means can participate without the ACE program.

So I won't do that.

Thank you.

I don't think I see anything that I would identify as being missing.

I'm excited about 2.3.

You know, we can talk about biodiversity and the importance of preservation all day long.

I don't have anything to add, I know 3.1, we talked about the scoring and everything, but I think we're going to be getting more information on all of that at another point, more information.

County.

Nothing bad.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't really have anything other than I agree with the 2.4.

I'm kind of interested in that cluster and what legislation staff would maybe a little bit further information on that at some point.

That'd be great.

Thank you and I have no additional comments, except that I know in the environmental chapter we're talking about riparian riparian conservation easements and I'd like to get a little clarification on how that fits in with this three on that.

Mr. Chair, I'm so sorry.

Sure.

I realize objective to describing, reducing and mitigating the impacts of natural systems and cultural resources from development when it occurs.

We touch on the former.

I'm not sure I'm catching where we're touching on the latter.

is addressing cultural resources.

I don't know that there's a cognate to that.

It seems like 2.3 could also have a second component or a separate action that would mirror that, but touch on cultural resources.

If we're looking

and I see some concerned faces.

No, I think it's fair comment.

And I'm looking at 2.3 just as a framework, because that's one that does specifically the natural resources component.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Suggestion is we take out the cultural resources part of that.

You find that when we come to talk to you about the historic cultural resources.

Exactly.

We have a chapter on that later, so it's going to be hot.

Thank you for the catch.

Thank you.

Good.

Then I think we can go to the next.

So four, is that where we are now?

Well, four, five, and six.

And they're all up.

I'm going to just see if we can make sure we cover our comments.

As a question for understanding, the 401, I mean, it's specific to using land conservation tools to reduce the conversion of rural lands, et cetera.

In similar fashion, I mean, it says as residential, commercial, large-scale utility uses.

But this basically relies on earlier easement conversations.

I mean, there's one program specifically we're going to talk about.

I'm thinking of the one large-scale utility that we

did approve, and I remember a lot of discussion around the soil condition that existed there now prior to going on.

But this in any way doesn't change the scrutiny if an application for large-scale utility came before us of how we would scrutinize the project.

This is just saying if things are put in easement, we won't ever have to worry about getting an application for large-scale utility or residential or whatever.

Do I have it right?

and I just call it 6-2.

Thank you.

Thank you.

It's reduced the conversion of rural land.