Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting   2/19/2025

Good afternoon.

I'm pleased to call to order this regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on this snowy 19th of February, 1 p.m.

in Lane Auditorium.

Welcome everybody who made it here in person and those of you joining us online.

I would like to note at the dais we have Supervisor Mike Prude of the Scottsville District, Supervisor Bila Pista-Curtley of the Rivanna District, Supervisor Diantha McKeel of the Jack Stewart District, Supervisor Ned Galloway of the Rio District, Supervisor Ann Malick,

of the Whitehall District, and myself, Jim Andrews, representing the Samuel Miller District.

A quorum is present.

We're also joined by our county executive, Mr. Jeff Richardson, our county attorney, Mr. Andy Herrick, our clerk, Ms.

Claudette Borgerson.

Also, let me please welcome police officer, Albemarle County police officer present, master police officer, Jerry Schenck, and officer Hunter Harmon.

As we unfortunately learned yesterday, law enforcement put their lives on the line every day.

to protect us, save lives, keep us safe.

And we thank you for your service here today and the work you do throughout the county.

Thank you.

Board, our first item, of course, is to adopt a final agenda.

We have a request to amend the agenda so that we can act on item 8.3 from the consent agenda.

The motion to approve the proclamation celebrating the 65th anniversary of the founding of the Center at Delvedere as a regular agenda item.

I also mentioned that for item 16, Ag Forestal District's Planning Commission minutes were added yesterday for the materials online.

So moved.

Yes.

Lapisa-Curtley.

Aye.

Ms.

Malek.

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel.

Yes.

Board would now move to item five, a brief announcement from board members.

Our order for today will start with Supervisor McKeel.

I don't think I have anything today.

Okay.

I think the only comments I was going to make, I can do when we do the proclamation.

Thank you.

As the chair already mentioned, we're grateful for the work of our public safety folks this week.

People are grateful for the rules the county has adopted about weapons in our county buildings and in our county parks.

And I've heard from people who felt that this was a safe place, they could come and they appreciate that.

Businesses can also do the same if they choose, and that's something that each will have to decide how they're going to go forward.

The applications are open now for the Sorenson High School Leadership Program.

there.

The upcoming program is July 12th through 26th.

Online application deadline is March 17th.

And please go to sorenson.org and get more information.

Participants in the program will engage with current leaders in Virginia's public, private and nonprofit sectors and explore how public policy is created.

Learn a lot about real world skills.

And as many of the programs that Sorenson produces, I've heard from others that this has been a very beneficial

effort.

So I wanted to share that with everybody and that's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I would like to echo and add my own little bit to what Supervisor Malik was already speaking to and gesturing toward.

It's not lost on I think any of us that there was an incredible tragedy in this community over the last few days.

and it is something that I know as a decision maker in this county has weighed really heavily on my heart.

There is always the question of in what way have the social nets that we have created failed in a certain in a certain instance.

I would

I personally am thinking through how we locally implement and facilitate and work with the public around emergency substantial risk orders.

We know from information that's been made available to the public that the perpetrator in the incident at the Harris teeter suffered from

and they had tried to go through the court system and not succeeded.

It's not clear if they tried emergency substantial risk order, if that's something that we have built our own kind of internal capacity to manage and to help process.

It is clear that we do not, as a state, contribute enough money and enough support to our community service boards that are designed to actually provide this kind of treatment in the community.

There are a lot of, I think,

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Just quickly, I attended on Thursday the Economic Development Authority, strategic plan, so they are developing a strategic plan with a consultant.

We had a number of people there.

that will be helping.

And I do believe that they'll be reaching out to the board members also to interview them.

So we know the path forward economically going forward, what we want to do, what we'd like to accomplish, but basically to have a plan.

So with that you can also tap into governmental opportunities, if any, but governmental opportunities for grants and such when you have

strategic plan.

So that was very useful.

That's all.

Thank you.

And I have no announcements.

So I read this proclamation in the form of a motion.

Proclamation celebrating the 65th anniversary of the founding of the center at Belvedere, the center.

whereas the Center at Belvedere founded in 1960 as an award-winning nonprofit organization supporting older adults in our region and is almost entirely unique in its service and focus on the importance of building community and social connections by promoting holistic, age-friendly environments as a critical component of public health and whereas at the time of the Center's founding, the work of volunteers in establishing the Senior Center put Albemarle County, Charlottesville, and surrounding counties

ahead of its time by providing one of the few centers designed to support older adults to live with dignity and independence and remain one of a relatively small number of non-residential centers supported primarily by individual philanthropy.

and whereas today thousands of people gather and embrace new opportunities to be physically active, learn new things, form friendships, pursue hobbies, give back to the community and take all the small actions that add up to more years in good health and whereas everyone in the community benefits when we close the gap between life spans and health spans and older adults who maintain active lifestyles and social connections incur lower health care costs, support family members as caregivers and give back to the community as volunteers

and by supporting the spaces and experiences that promote these activities that contribute significantly to community health strategies.

Now, therefore, be it proclaimed that we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby celebrate the 65th anniversary of the founding of the Center at Belvedere, signed this 19th day of February 2025.

Chair Jim Endres.

We have a motion from Supervisor Galloway, seconded by Supervisor Malek.

Ms.

Lapista-Curtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Malek?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Mr. Pruitt?

Aye.

Yes.

Thank you.

My understanding is that Melanie Benjamin, the Executive Director of the Center for Belvedere, could not be here in person, but is online.

If you would be willing to accept this proclamation, I look forward to hearing from you, Ms.

Hello.

Thank you so much Board of Supervisors for honoring the Center on its 65th year of service.

As your proclamation stated,

The center is here in our community and has been for 65 years supporting the healthy aging of adults in our community.

That means tens of thousands of seniors have been able to take advantage of making sure that they are the people who support their own health and well-being, their own connections to community, and give back to the community as volunteers.

We sincerely appreciate the Board of Supervisors voting for this proclamation and our honor today.

Thank you.

We'll close for order for additional comments.

Sure.

We appreciate you being here even if it is on the screen.

That's one of the advantages of technology.

Having said that, we certainly do appreciate the center's work in this community.

I remember, well, it's been a good while back when the center asked us to donate some money, seed money, for the center.

And I did a little investigating along with that request.

And what I found out was that many communities

in the state of

to have the center doing all of this wonderful work with our residents.

We are so appreciative of it.

And I think the community needs to understand that you are relieving the board of supervisors of that funding.

So we really appreciate that.

And I think I would encourage all of our citizens that can to use your facility and help support your facility as best they can.

So thank you very much.

Appreciate the work.

Yeah, I'll simply say I was pleased to be able to attend the 65th birthday celebration that was held at the center this past Friday.

It's unfortunate that snow has now not just inhibited our ability to pass this proclamation ahead of that celebration, but also disrupted the plans for those who are going to be here in person.

I'm glad you could join virtually.

I did not know the full extent of the history of the center, and I learned that Friday, the different locations, and especially the founding mothers, as they were called, and who they were, including Ms.

Gleason.

Gleason that was in attendance at a hundred years old to be there to celebrate with everybody and it was well attended and lots of folks from the community were out and that was just wonderful to see the, not just the slides, it's always fun to see the kind of pictures of it happening, but to know the history and how it continues to continue to grow.

I will say that Melanie's quick calling out parking because it seems like every place you've been parking becomes a thing, including now, right?

but the center is always, you know, I don't drive, I drive past the center on a regular daily basis and it always has plenty of cars.

I mean 75 percent that lot is usually full and that's just, I think that's the testament to what we all thought was going to happen especially at this location because of all the programs that people like to take advantage of and the fact that now

in the

Congratulations on your 65th year.

Melanie, a personal appreciation for all the work I know you do with the local residents.

Sometimes that's not easy, but you've been very attentive to everybody's needs.

So I appreciate that outreach and the work with local community members.

Thank you and I also was fortunate enough to attend on Friday and to remember the founding mothers who were such a large part of my growing up here.

Family, friends and an example of

The Senior Center beginnings another of the baby projects that the University League put together.

And the one that my mother was involved in was called the Well Baby Clinic.

She drove a checker cab without power steering all through the mountains of Western Albemarle, bringing families, moms and babies to the medical clinics because there was no other way.

And this was in the 1950s, and so it shows how

this energetic and determined group of women who cared so deeply for their community came up with this grand idea and have made it stick.

So some numbers, I remember there were 37 members in 1965 and there are over 2,000 today.

That's pretty spectacular and 198 weekly programs were just some numbers that stuck in my mind and I am very proud of the investment that the county made in 2017 because

For an 8% investment in the building, we have this spectacular ongoing effort made by nonprofits who do not then require that $6 to $10 million investment in county staff every year, which is the range of other counties that I researched in 2017 as well.

Making health spans go along with life spans.

That's spectacular.

Thank you so much.

I think I first truly became aware of the scope of the work that goes on at the center when I was campaigning.

I had learned a little bit about the work y'all do when I met with Marta earlier on in the campaign, but it was not until I had a meeting there.

I walked into that big gorgeous building.

and I have to admit I was frankly gobsmacked.

There were so many signs pointing to all the different things that were happening simultaneously.

There were people buzzing around.

I got an amazing sandwich at the cafe right there.

And just to like truly illustrate this, I have gone on Yoll's website right now.

pulled up your calendar of events, looking at today, just on Monday, in the middle of February, right?

And there are more separate, discrete events that people are going to be going to at the center.

I think if I went to the Seville weekly right now and I was like, what's happening this weekend in Seville?

I think you probably have more things going on on a Monday than the whole city of Charlottesville has going on that are listed in our local indie.

That's really impressive.

This is one of the many reasons I am so urgent to convince my parents that they need to move up here to Charlottesville as they approach their golden years.

Yes, thank you very much Melanie for coming.

We really appreciate what you do.

I first became acquainted more in depth with the center because of two people in my life, Julie Christopher, who is the president.

President of the Center and a neighbor and also Michelle Medezza who works, who volunteers with Master Gardeners and I went to the big event where you're planting everything in the back and I saw so many flowers and plants that were beautiful that I had no idea what they were but you know fortunately there were little signs saying what they were it was really a pollinator garden it was fantastic and also

I learned that people going there, and I'm going to name, I know that Supervisor Pruitt mentioned some things, but they have drumming, acoustic jam sessions, a chorus, which they, which I couldn't join because they wouldn't allow me to.

Anyway, I'm just kidding.

Health, health issue, they have health

County, and

which I've eaten there before.

So I just appreciate everything you all are doing for the community and continue doing what you're doing because it's working and it's really filling a need for a lot of people to be socially engaged and we know how important that is.

Thank you.

I will also add my congratulations on the 65th and second, the encouraging people to look to your website to recognize all the different events.

You mentioned Monday's list, Thursday's list, tomorrow's list is even longer.

My wife was supposed to be at Wise Women this morning, but that unfortunately got canceled.

But obviously, she's a wise woman who have decided to join the Center and find many activities there of interest.

Thank you for all you do.

Board, with that, we are now ready to move on to item seven from the public, which is matters previously considered or currently pending before the Board other than scheduled public hearings.

And Vice Chair McKeil will read the rules and introduce the speakers.

And I have three speakers today, and we have no one online.

So, during the time set aside for public comment on matters previously considered or currently pending before the Board other than scheduled public hearings, individuals may address the Board of Supervisors concerning matters previously considered by the Board or matters that are pending by the Board.

County.

Individuals are allowed one opportunity of up to three minutes to speak at each board meeting.

A sign-up sheet is managed by the clerk's office.

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

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

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

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

In order 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 Elmora County, your Magisterial District, address comments directly to the board as a whole.

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

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

Speakers may not share any unused time with another speaker.

Back and forth debate is not permitted.

Do not speak from your seat or out of turn.

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

And our first speaker is Ms.

O'Flynn.

My name is Lynn Gebhard.

I can speak up.

We cannot hear you very well.

My name is Lynn Gebhard.

I'm from Albemarle County, Scottsville District.

I've lived in Albemarle County for 56 years.

I am here as a resident and a landowner of an equine farm business and representing thousands of equine enthusiasts.

in Albemarle County.

The horse industry is alive and well in Albemarle County.

I am here to address two topics.

First and most importantly, you need to include from the 2015 Comprehensive Plan at Economic Development the economic impacts of the horse industries in Virginia.

a short quote from the Albemarle County 2015 comprehensive plan, quote, horse farming and equine activities are another long lasting agricultural use in Albemarle County.

Horse farming is a term inclusive of any or all of the activities of horse breeding, boarding, training, and riding lessons.

The horse industry is a vital part of the economic impact in Albemarle County.

Continuing agricultural land use for the horse community.

Number two, reinstating horse trails on Biscuit Run Park.

The horse community filled this very auditorium to voice and secure horse trails in the Biscuit Run State Park.

The horse community was applauded

appalled to find out that the horse trails scrapped from the 1200 acre Albemarle County Park.

The horse community is requesting the following, add the horse language used in the 2015 comprehensive plan to address agricultural use for the horse farming and industry.

reinstate horse trails at Biscuit Run Park.

Last, the Albemarle County seal includes a horse to represent the historical and value of horses and the current value of the equine industry.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Thank you very much.

And our next speaker is Mr. Gebhard.

Gebhard.

Gebhard.

H-A-R-D.

G-E-B-H-A-R-D.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Mark Gebhardt.

I've been a county resident for more than 20 years.

I'm also a horse farm owner and equine business owner with my wife, Lynn.

So I'm also a registered professional engineer with over 30 years of experience working for the federal government.

My experience includes developing master plans, which would equate to your comprehensive plan.

In my experience, the master plan would be fully coordinated at all levels, and it would also be integrated with your construction, your maintenance, service contracts and programs, and it would also be coordinated with environmental studies and programs necessary to implement the plan.

now before I get into my comments I want to just say hey look I'm not here to be critical none of my comments are intended to be flaming arrows against your staff and I'm not telling you about my experience to tell you that I know more about your business than you do I'm just saying hey I could be helpful

So now on to my comments.

My grade for the AC44 comprehensive plan so far is meaty ochre.

The reason is as follows.

It fails to coordinate with the Thomas Jefferson Regional Plan, the Charlottesville City Plan, or the Commonwealth Plan for Economic Development.

The plan is rooted

II.

The plan is rooted in the flawed ideology of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

The plan mentions equity and quality throughout.

The great black economist Thomas Sowell conducted extensive research and has written many books on the topic.

He clearly and accurately states that equity and equality are not achieved at the family level, which begs the question how we intend to achieve it at any other level.

to understand this concept at the county level.

There are over 1,100 employees with salaries ranging from $264,000 to as low as $16,000.

If you truly believed in the concept, everybody would be the same.

Just my opinion.

So addressing equity and qualities that pertains to AC 44, the plan outlines the intention for most of the future money to be

spent in the parks and infrastructure in the development area.

40% of the residents live in the rural area with their tax money used to support the developed area.

How does this fit into an equity and a quality model?

When it comes to the environmental stewardship, your plan does not seem to be coordinated with the 2022 energy plan from the Commonwealth where it's addressing energy needs, energy production for the Commonwealth and how we would integrate renewable energy as environmental stewardship.

Is Ms.

We have one person online.

We have had, evidently, one person added online and the clerk will take care of the instructions for that person.

So I believe her name is Paula.

Paula, you may begin speaking.

Good afternoon.

My name is Paula Beasley, Samuel Miller District.

Yes, we can miss Beasley.

Okay, great.

I apologize.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.

which I would note has not really been provided for attachment C in the concept of land swapping between development and rural areas and considerations for expansion of the development area particularly.

Discussion of expansion of the development area has been considered previously and has been and should only be decided once the development area is fully utilized as where the expansion should occur and the type of expansion may differ dramatically over time.

Premature predictions and decisions will simply fragment the rural areas and deteriorate the county's assets.

For the same reason and more, we oppose any discussion of land swapping.

Since the first comprehensive plan nearly half century now, there's been strong support for clear delineation between the development and rural areas, not only to preserve the benefits of unfragmented landscapes, agricultural and forest lands, but concentration of the development area preserves the county's resources

and financial requirements.

Research has proven that rural lands are far less expensive for the county as very little infrastructure is required as compared to the development areas, enabling the county to more effectively apply its financial resources.

Residents have made residential decisions and financial expenditures in purchasing and conserving lands based on previous comprehensive plans.

The development areas have benefited not only financially in receiving more of the county's resources,

but also from the carbon sequestration, water preservation and aesthetic contributions of the county's rural lands.

Agriculture and tourism are the county's primary economic drivers and should not be sacrificed in other pursuits.

in growing new economic sectors, primary consideration should be given to evaluating whether or not those sectors can be accommodated within existing development areas and what negative impacts the growth of such a sector has on existing transportation, land use, energy, environmental and climate related county objectives.

Evaluation of new economic sectors should not be made in a vacuum of only financial benefits.

but offset by potential negative impacts which will impact all residents of the county in both their work and non-working activities.

Prior comprehensive plans have included the concept of sustainability in evaluating the extent of development area for the county and we believe this concept should be reintroduced.

Reservation of rural lands is essential to the county's heritage, biodiversity, environmental stewardship, local food, and climate initiatives.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any comments that you're unable to read can be provided to the clerk.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

And that concludes the matters from the public, which brings us to Item 8, which is the Consent Agenda.

Other than the removal of the proclamation, Item 8.3, which has now already been read, are there any other items to pull from the Consent Agenda, minutes or any others?

So moved.

Motion from Supervisor Malek.

Second from Supervisor McKeel.

Mr. Galloway.

Yes.

Ms.

Lapisto-Curtley.

Aye.

Ms.

Malek.

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel.

Yes.

Mr. Pruitt.

Aye.

Yes.

Board.

We have a full agenda about our main item for today is a continued work session previously scheduled for February 12th on AC 44 rural area and development area land use chapters and growth management policy revisions led by Ms.

Tanya Schwartzendrubber, planning manager with welcome, Ms.

Schwartzendrubber.

You don't mind.

I'd like to take this moment to take a few comments.

We'll make a few statements for you all.

Good afternoon.

I'm your... We can't hear you.

You can't hear me.

Try again.

My name is Michael Barnes.

I'm your planning director.

Today at the request of several staff or board members, staff is bringing back three key sections of the AC44 comp plan for your review.

That's the county's growth management plan.

and the topic chapters on the development area land use and rural area land use chapters.

Retaining clear consensus on these three sections will enable the county to chart course forward over the next 5, 10, 20 years and hopefully after today's consideration and commentary or discussion on the board as well as several other opportunities that you will have

as we go to wrap up the plan in the fall, we were unable to us to the county to have clear consensus moving forward.

First, I think I wanted to thank our staff.

It's been quite the lift on this project and people like Ben Holt and Torrey Cuninopoulos have really been the engine that has driven this thing forward to enable you all to

have a plan that is done without a consultant, which most counties would be forced to hire, as well as Tanya Schwartzendruber and other people like David Benish and Jody

Florida, as well as multiple other departments, Parks and Rec, Housing, Economic Development, to name a few, who have really worked hard to put these chapters together and this plan together.

So it's really represented a wide effort.

And finally, I'd like to thank you all, the board.

One of the biggest things we've been trying to do with this plan is shorten its length.

The 2015 plan is over 900 pages.

It says a lot, maybe it says too much.

It's kind of hard to know what the priorities are in it.

So one of the major things we've been trying to do in this plan is to really strip it down.

And I thank you all.

I think it's really a debate that I've been watching you all have on this board, on these chapters as they've been coming through.

I think really you're wrestling with some of the critical issues that we need to wrestle with the county.

So I thank you all for doing that and I think that's partly the design of the chapter.

And so I'd like to try to highlight several different things that are coming forward in today's three chapters we're talking about.

The first, the growth management policy.

I think one of the things that we did was try to put that front and center.

You'll remember that the document sort of has three major sections.

It's an introductory section, and there's a middle section that really talks about the growth management policy, and what we want to try and do with that.

I think that's part of the debate we're also talking about, about

County.

The boundary, and they're tweaking that to make that right.

That's the second part of the document, and so we're going to be talking about that today.

And then the last is the 10 chapters, the first two being the rural area land use and development area land use chapters.

and I would underline that with the Development Area Land Use Chapter, Walton Cooper Center says in the next 20 years we're going to hopefully be able to accommodate another 31,000 people in the county.

Primarily, most of those will go into the development area.

and I think what we try to do in this chapter is really outline, you know, you can accommodate people, obviously in the rural areas, but if you want to put them in the development areas, you can put them somewhat in the existing neighborhoods, but I think the direction that we've gotten from you all is the concept of the activity centers.

I wanted to try to underline that because as we try and put these

this population in those activity center areas, it's going to require that we also provide the services and infrastructure that helps support those services of those people.

And so that's embedded in the chapter and the idea of making those investments in the activity centers is one of the key things that we're trying to do to accommodate these new citizens.

and then finally the rural area.

We've tried to be very intentional about that.

Talking about the still keeping the front and center of the ideas of protecting agricultural and forestry uses, protecting the environment, but also trying to accommodate some of the changes that we're hearing both from you and the community to some of the non-residential uses that would be

are found in the rural area existing ones and how we treat those.

Or new non-commercial uses, non-residential uses that would, that we recognize are coming or need to come into the rural area.

We've really tried to give you guys some good guidance and hopefully your debate will continue to focus on how to get that right, especially as we go to write a new zoning ordinance in our next step.

So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Tanya, unless you have any questions, to talk about today's topics.

Thank you.

Unless I see immediate questions, we'll turn it over to this Schwarzenjuber.

Thank you.

I'm Tanya Schwarzenjuber with the Community Development Department as a planning manager.

And I'm here to talk about some of the document revisions and a few extra topics that have come up from previous work sessions.

Our agenda today is really focused on discussing the boundary criteria for the development areas and rural areas, as well as TDRs and small rural scale uses, the design guidelines that we provide, as well as any of the revisions to the actual chapter topics.

So what I'll do if it's all right with the board, I'll go through my very short presentation so it allows you plenty of time to

get through some of your comments and questions.

These are the direction topics that we're looking for input on.

I'll get a little bit more detailed in each of the topics for specifically what we might need direction on.

Let's start with the development areas and rural area boundary criteria.

This was included per your request to look at these criteria that were originally presented to you in phase two.

We would like your feedback on the criteria and if staff should use this criteria to either analyze potential locations that could be appropriate for changes based on swapping land area or just include the criteria in the comp plan for future consideration.

As far as transfer of development rights or as some refer to them as TDRs, in one of the previous work sessions this idea came was identified to promote land conservation.

We wanted to bring back a little more information on how TDRs work and for what purpose.

So TDRs are typically used to reduce development potential in one location and allow for higher intensity developed

development in another location by establishing, sending, and receiving zones.

The idea here would be to establish sending and receiving zones within the rural area only.

I want to be clear that TDRs are not the same as cluster development or the rural preservation development that we allow.

as well as staff would need to develop the sending and receiving zones, which can be a time consuming activity, so it's not quite a silver bullet that solves a problem quickly.

The reasons we might consider looking at this type of tool is

allowing or promoting more affordable housing within the rural area, protection of environmental resources, and allowing properties to develop that might not normally.

So staff would like to know if you would like to add an action to the AC44 rural land use chapter to include TDRs as a potential tool.

As far as small and rural-scale uses go, the Zoning District currently allows some small-scale commercial retail uses by special permit, such as non-historic country stores that are less than 4,000 square feet, daycares, etc.

The community input indicates support for additional uses that would support surrounding community members like doctors offices, dentist offices, small scale markets, local artisans and crafters that could allow access to affordable and healthy food.

Some of these uses I just mentioned

are not allowed even with a special permit, including restaurants and buildings that were not previously used as a restaurant, tavern, or inn.

We were asked previously to clarify small scale uses in rural communities and provide more flexibility for those land uses.

So staff would like your feedback on the revised action 5.1 and direction on how restaurants should be regulated within the rural area.

Getting to the revisions in the land use chapter as well as the growth management plan.

We did provide in your packet a summary of the revisions.

I'm going to go through the next two slides for those who may not have gotten a chance to review that who are online or in the audience.

Just a shorter summary.

What we did is we added a major findings and trends in each one of the chapters.

We also incorporated references to the public water supply and additional characteristics of the development areas in the growth management policy.

As well as on the future land use map, we separated the publicly accessible parks and open space from private open space as requested by the board.

We also included the multimodal strategic plan connection as part of a successful strategy for implementing activity centers.

We added protecting and increasing access to nature portion in the development areas chapter.

And all of the actions that were requested both by PC and confirmed by the board from your feedback, we did update those actions as requested.

and as usual my last slide our last slide is going over the schedule as of now this is our schedule going forward of course we're here today to talk about the revisions to these chapters coming up in February we'll be going to PC for the parks and recreation and open space on the 25th and then to back to you all on March 5th

We're also expecting to present thriving economy to PC on March 11th and to the board on April 2nd.

Then community facilities and infrastructure to PC on March 25th and also that same chapter to you all on April 2nd.

So we'll be reviewing two chapters on April 2nd.

With that, I'm going to bring up the direction topics and answer any questions or clarifications that you all might have.

Thank you.

So we're looking at the direction topics slide, or which slide would you like?

We're going to ask questions.

We've got a lot of things I'm sure that people want to discuss.

I have an order listed here on the screen so we can talk about it in that order and then go to specific, any specific revisions or comments on the chapter themselves.

Okay.

I do have them as a backup slide, so I'm happy to put those criteria up if you'd like for your resource.

Why don't you do that?

Sure.

Happy to.

Since I have to concentrate on one thing at a time.

I understand.

So this right here is the criteria for potential removal, and then the following slides are for just evaluation criteria.

Right.

Right.

So area boundary criteria, and we're talking about, I think the way I look at this in general is we're going to be talking about this today, and you all would come back to us depending on what our conversation is.

We're not making any absolute decisions today.

is that correct?

It does depend on what you'd like for us to do.

Sure.

Okay, just to make sure, since I'm the first one out of the okay here.

I guess the first overarching statement is that

I am very trying to frame this correctly because I don't want a lot of misunderstandings about comments.

I am very supportive of a development area and a rural area designation.

Having said that, there's not much I touch in my life or do that I do it the same way that I've done it since 1971.

And one can make adjustments

sometimes people like to call them tweaks, but you can make adjustments without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I guess you get a sense of where I'm going with this.

We've had a decrease in development area lands from 48,000 acres to 28,000 acres.

I believe that's correct.

That sounds about right.

Since the 70s.

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

I am just saying that that's a lot of acreage lost and I think it is time to look at perhaps trading or adjusting.

So I think that pretty much explains where I am right now.

because what you're referring to here are the criteria that you all have suggested.

And it does seem like to me that the criteria is appropriate.

I would be happy to entertain a discussion of the criteria from the other board members here if they have any other suggestions or staff does, but it seemed like to me that the criteria you proposed are appropriate in the review.

Thank you.

Am I answering your question?

You are.

and I guess I don't need to say anything else.

Plenty of opportunities.

I mean, I think the criteria that was put up, I was happy with.

I mean, I think that was a good start.

It was a little bit more comprehensive than even I was thinking.

Like, so there I appreciate the effort that's been put in to consider it.

I think that this combined with

in the development areas applications come forth we've talked about having as part of the staff report on any up zoning or something like that where we're at like what the score is or the impact is of that particular development I think that kind of plays in here in a way that I hadn't thought of before so just when you're talking about

Albemarle

but if we can't have conversations or dialogue about it, then I think to me that's a bad idea, not discussing it or acting like it doesn't exist.

So we might as well understand what the conflicts are, what the strains are, what the tensions are and discuss it and have a conversation about it.

This gives us the ability to do that as we move forward.

So I'm happy with this.

When I went through it, I wasn't, you know, I guess I could nitpick bullet points about what is here, what isn't there.

But generally speaking, I think this is a good starting point to see how this goes forward.

I think if it's mentioned and addressed in the comprehensive plan, it at least says that it's on the radar for the county to be considering and discussing.

Again, like Supervisor McKeel said, we're not making any decisions today about it.

It's a process.

I think it's going to be an ongoing process.

So I was happy with this criteria, and I always looked at it from the idea of identifying spots that might come in, but identifying the spots that already are in that can't be.

So when we talk about filling up the development area, then we need to clearly identify those, because if we think there's capacity there and there's not, then we need to be realistic about that.

So I think that's where I'm at.

I'm happy to have this.

If we want to get into more nuance of every single bullet or something like that, I didn't seem like that's what you were looking for today.

But I think this is a great start that says to folks, look.

We're putting the pressure on the development areas to take on the bulk of the population, the bulk of the services, the bulk of the infrastructure, the bulk of economic development, right?

And if we have areas that can't meet that need, then we just, we need to have that conversation and figure out what we're going to do about it, if anything.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Before I determine how I can give direction, I do have a couple of questions just to understand, since I didn't get feedback from what I had sent, at least any answers, I'm going to have to ask them now.

So this is, Attachments C is what we're supposed to be focusing on right now, right?

Just so I talk about the right thing.

A lot is mentioned over and over again in various elements both in the rural plan and in the growth management policy about the reduction in acres.

And that was a statewide referendum approved down zoning.

that needs

and or was not the decision at the time was that there was not going to be sewer provided so therefore that went out and the early spell was no longer a village because there was going to be no sewer and sidewalk brought there and so we couldn't have townhouses and things that were originally in that plan in 71.

So just I think that background while brief is really important to include somewhere so that the 30,000 new people who have come in just the last 15 years

County.

This is the goals today.

And the second part of that question is how is the loss of the existing affordable housing on a particular site taken into consideration?

Because a lot of these properties around the fringes have a lot of older neighborhoods that are going to be bulldozed if this changes.

And so that sets us back in our affordable housing provision.

So are those two things something one can't answer today?

I think what we're trying to do here is provide the guardrails, not necessarily the answer as far as the time frame that you might be looking at for these criteria.

This is information that we would bring to you as you were considering an addition or removal of a parcel or set of parcels from the boundary areas.

Dashboard that he kept for 20 years about exactly what was happening overall in the whole community because we would have known right away that we were not filling all the the slots if we had been doing that.

Okay, jumping down to draft criteria on the bottom of page one here.

These are all in the impact section in transportation.

I think people may be

eagerly looking at the area to the west of 29 North that is still in the rural area.

But for the $230 million that the state put into the 29 solutions funding,

It was very clearly

I think this goes along with expanding the geography and therefore diluting the resources available to finally try to catch up better on the existing gaps that we have in our neighborhoods today for sidewalks and things.

So that's a concern.

The water supply watershed at the bottom of that.

I think dealing with water protection does not go along well with feasible alternative locations.

So I would feel much better about that if we were not always, oh, well, we can just make it a little bit dirt.

Let's just try to think about the water provision for the growth area and the 55 plus even more, you know, 60 percent or more of the residents in the growth area who have to have public water.

Then we need to do our county job to make sure that that is is there.

OK, so that's really all I have sent you about.

C. And I'm very fine to have a more strict approach to the constrained land that we have in the growth area.

And if that's a basis for swapping, because we know we can't, I'm not in favor of bulldozing critical slopes and putting stuff on there.

This is not California, and we don't need to have that situation here.

So if that's part of the discussion, then I'd be happy with that.

So I'll stop there.

Thank you.

I think the criteria for removing underperforming areas makes a lot of sense.

I think it really accurately, as I think another supervisor, pardon me.

Sorry.

As I believe another supervisor pointed out, it kind of seems to have effectively taken what were some strong political intuitions that we were targeting after

County, New York, New York, New York,

interesting.

And, you know, as Supervisor McKeel said, there is nothing in my life that I use that I was also using in 1971.

Sorry about that.

Point being, I don't think a

I think it would be a little bit of hubris to assume that we stumbled across the perfect boundaries of our development area before the median Albemarle resident was born.

Thank you.

Yes, could you go back to slide 15, please?

Okay, 14.

Okay, 13, or might be 12.

12 is where we started, I believe.

Yeah.

So perhaps for people listening there, we're talking about doing, I'm putting it in simpler language, a swap between a parcel of land and the development area that could be and a plot of land in the rural area.

that, and please correct me if I'm wrong, in the development area that's, let's say plot area A, plot A, is really not conducive for development.

Maybe the location, maybe like a water, whatever.

But it's really not conducive to development.

Plot B in the rural area would be because it's closer to sewer and water.

It's closer to other services that are available and such.

So maybe that would be appropriate.

So you're talking about approximately the same size of areas and just switching them.

Do I have that right?

That sounds correct, yes.

Okay.

Great simplification.

And I would very much like to see, because we're not making decisions today, but I would like, would be interested in seeing the locations or an example of locations where that might be applicable.

And making sure that the environmental, I'm very focused on the environmental constraints also.

but I would like to see that.

So I'm in favor of looking at this, exploring it more to see what can be done because I'm sure when this was all laid out before certain people were born.

Supervisor McKeel and myself for a while.

But making sure that

in the future.

So once again, I'm bringing in that famous word flexibility to be able to see, okay, should we do this, is this a good decision?

Because things do change.

Even streams directions change and everything.

So

I am supportive of this to seeing what can be done.

I'm a little more skeptical I guess about some of this.

Starting with number one locations that are not meeting the goals and policies.

It feels vague and broad and I wonder if instead of not meeting, can't meet in some sense of what are the reasons why this area can't meet the goals and policies because I'm worried that

We're going to say, well, it's not meeting it, but we haven't really looked at how we could make it so that it would meet it.

What are the incentives?

What are the reasons why it's not meeting the goals and policies, the comprehensive plans?

So I'm looking at that and worried about that language.

Steepe Slopes

and I'm a little confused as to the limited public infrastructure, infrastructure capacity and access as to, you know, what are those areas.

So I guess what I would say that I'm thinking as I look through this is that in provision of services

to people, public services, I see the urban ring as the best place to be able to efficiently do that.

And so when we talk about possibly recognizing that there are areas in the urban ring that are not performing, I'd like to see those perform.

Whereas if we're talking about areas that are well outside the urban ring, I'm less concerned because they're not necessarily places for efficient use of service, delivery of services.

Some of that goes into, you know, trying to identify things which I know we're not trying to do, which is why, again, I'm skeptical about pushing too much into the AC44 about these criteria when it could be more better suited to a master planning process, which a number of people commented on who have commented on this section saying, well, why don't you do that in a master planning process?

I will pile on agreement with Supervisor Malek that while I understand that 1971 is a long time ago, so was 1980, I still feel that the opening section of the growth management policy and at least one other place are in their

University,

very, very much at one time in 1980, I guess it was.

So without that history in there, I think something is lost as to what really we're talking about.

And I think that that shows that this has been something that has been, whether it's good or not, somewhat static for 45 years, if not 55 years.

and that's, I think, important to understand that history.

I also agree that I, in the Criterion page, slide 16, I believe, Supervisor Allen suggested removal if there are feasible alternative locations when talking about water supply, watershed, and I agree with that comment.

Okay, well I do hope that we get a chance to get some feedback from the Planning Commission on that as well.

Those are my comments on that section.

It was asked about examples where a swap could happen and I will just throw out the one that did happen in 2015.

If you can picture the trestle by Fiesta Azteca on 250 and 250 makes a sharp bend to the south and goes on past on the southern edge of the Crozet growth area, the land immediately to the north there was rural area.

It was swapped out and put into the growth area.

In return for acreage north of 240, which was all surrounding the streams that go into Beaver Creek Reservoir and to reduce the impact there,

that's one that happened as part of the crowsie master plan.

It was very thoroughly discussed and I think successfully achieved much better than and did not have any argument or anything else.

Everybody seemed to think this was a really, really good idea.

So to that that was why when the idea

was brought forth a

The reason why the county attracts so many people and many of us have wanted to stay here or come here is because of the work that our predecessors did for 75 years.

So I am not willing to just say it's old and we're throwing it out.

That's all.

And I think that's also explains why I'm more interested in seeing this in a master planning process than an overarching AC44 language.

Maybe because I went first.

I just come back around a minute.

I really appreciate Ann giving that example.

That was great.

And I do want to push back a little bit.

Nobody is saying because this is old, we're just throwing it out.

That's not what we're saying.

But I would like to just make a point that when you talk about public schools, I think it's going to be really critical to work with the schools about their school capacity projections.

Because that, and I just wanted to go on record as saying, those projections have caused a lot of angst.

and we get into really every time we have a proposal.

So it appears to me that that spreadsheet that we use that schools prepare, I mean we just need to make sure that's more accurate or clearer in what the actual capacities are.

I'm going to speak for myself I think it's important for you to understand from my point of view that we're not looking to expand the development area so I'm not looking to expand the development area however if there are a

one or two.

There are some good examples like Supervisor Malik mentioned.

Yeah.

So that made sense.

Something that makes sense, okay, but not just for the staff to be looking, okay, where can we do swap outs.

I think we, this board has an obligation to build out higher and denser in the development areas and I'm not sure, I would like me, I would like that to be the focus of developing higher denser but if something does come up that makes sense

then that's probably something I'd look at.

But definitely we need to do our job going higher and denser in the development areas.

I would just like to, for the record, I suppose, note that I appreciate your point, Chair Andrews, about specifically factors one and two that we listed, or sorry, excuse me, one and three that we listed and how if we

if we don't figure out a way

We have not adequately invested in this area.

Let's say it's not meeting the comprehensive plan, right?

There are plenty of, and maybe the language could just be as influenced by extrinsic factors.

Maybe we could identify specific extrinsic factors like geography, which Supervisor Andrews spoke about, but also things like the existing land build out.

the presence of asphalt, the existence of restricted covenants, known patterns of land ownership, right?

When we look at the village of Rivanna, the last major developable parcels of land are owned all by one person who has made very clear that he does not want them developed, right?

That is an extrinsic factor that matters in this circumstance.

And so I would just gesture toward the factors one and three and suggest that maybe we should figure out a way to

Two comments.

I think there are areas inside the development area that could be considered rural area.

In my district, the development area boundary goes right up to the river.

I haven't heard anybody say they want to see a lot of housing development go right up to the river from 29 all the way down to the city line so how many acres when you consider the floodplain would exist from route 29 all the way up to the river on the development area side that go all the way down to the city that are calculated in the math for the percentage but cannot be built on and should not be built on

I think there are a lot of communities that have developed right up and along their river to use that amenity for a lot of different purposes that I don't think exist in our ideology and even for folks that may want to expand the development area around here would not agree with.

but that has to be taken into account in the math.

So that's just the basic nature of it.

Same with the parks.

The few parks that do exist within development area boundaries.

They're not going to be developed.

that has to be taken to care of in the math, because the math is what we're using to say this is where we're going to put all this density and all these services.

Well, it ain't gonna work if we don't realistically understand where the units can go.

The same can be said, I mean Mr. Williamson has reminded us about current spots that are commercial in use and can residential happen in there.

It's the same kind of concept as that.

It's like, all right, then we should have that conversation too, should residential be allowed in those commercial areas.

I don't disagree necessarily with what our Chair Andrews mentioned about through the master planning process.

The Northern Development Area's master plan has not been updated since 2011.

It had an amendment in 2015, but the master planning process, by the time we were to do it, in the development area master plans, based on the current cycle of when the master plans have happened, we'll have revamped the cop plan again by then.

and that's not a criticism, that's reality of how it's gone.

So I am fine with us considering the criteria and everything within a master planning process, but those have to have a better defined time frame and the comp plan is the master plan.

The comp plan is what's supposed to drive those other planning processes.

If we don't put it in here and mention it, then what's going to drive in those master plans?

I'm more concerned that if the two, like

all the time by CAC.

Everybody has their little nuances from their CACs of what they like to remind us liaisons the Planning Commissioner and Supervisors about.

Mine is the fact that our master plan has not been updated since 2011.

So all of this has to drive the planning processes that happen below it in my opinion, which is why it needs to be in the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

I'm just going to add at least a suspect to the comment about waterfront and parks and things like that.

Those are the types of things that I am talking about when I say can't meet.

Can't meet the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan because of the nature of the property.

That said, I don't want to get hung up on 95.5.

I've never liked the idea that we're describing everything in terms of 95.5.

We're describing things in terms of an urban ring and some satellite areas that we think we can provide services to in an efficient manner to develop.

And I don't like the idea that we're taking a park and saying, well, since that's in the 5%, we have to find something outside it to balance it.

We always knew that park was in that area.

Now, Biscuit Run is newer, but in some of the other cases, these are areas that we knew existed when we made this designation in the first place.

But I think that was a good example of what I was talking about.

We have to stop saying 95 and 5 then in our own discourse.

Because it's not 5%.

It's not 95% either.

And if we don't have a criteria that identifies it,

Well we have hard boundaries but they're not hard boundaries and the river is the exact example of that.

The hard boundaries of the river, let's use Rio Road, the hard boundaries on one side of Rio and the other side of Rio is where the development is happening.

but that's where water in sewer goes.

There's probably better places already that exist there that could swap out versus other places in the development area that aren't ever going to be there.

So, I mean, I just don't, I don't see how, we're basically locking out, I mean, it's the language in here states that we're locking out new development in the rural area.

So, we're really limiting who can do any new housing specifically in the rural area.

We've said that if you're not of a certain class basically, you can't get into the rural area as a new development.

And that means that we are dictating certain

certain class segments of the society must live in the development area, and I don't like limiting that choice in some ways, but that's what this language seems to say at times, and that can be disconcerting, and that even can go back to the 70s, and if you know historically, as I'm sure Supervisor Pruitt knows, what happens after the Equal Housing Law is passed, then it all turned to zoning.

I appreciate those remarks, Ned.

I guess I'm just grateful for the numerous small new houses being built around me because I don't see the same prohibition happening, but I'm lucky I guess.

Thank you.

I don't think we have enough information to really understand when you're talking about swamps I mean Supervisor Galloway said you in the development area you have land right along the river okay and we don't want to build right along the river but also I don't I wouldn't want staff to say okay we're gonna swap that out for something in in the rural area that I don't think that's what we're talking about it is what we're talking about

Call it rural area.

Alright.

Not in that section, not in my district.

It does in some places.

where the development area goes up along.

Pantops is a good example.

But from 29 North down to the city line, the Rivanna River corridor through there, you could define, that's rural area,

Well, I don't think it's something that you make a

is an overarching decision on.

That's why you come up with a criteria.

Correct.

And that you can start having the conversations so that like the public speaker today online said, you know, the development area is not completely full and we shouldn't discuss it until it is full.

I disagree with that sentiment.

I think we should discuss it before it's full.

But if we have all these applications that are coming forward and we understand what we're doing to the potential of the development area as we move forward, then I think this criteria is very helpful to us as other

County.

It's not an overarching decision to say we're going to take these swaths of land and identify them now as rural or development area.

Right, no, the criteria is important, and you're right, you don't want to identify them, you know, the maps and everything.

We just have to, I think we need more of an understanding how this would work.

I don't necessarily agree where buildings or developments should take place in the rural area that are away from a lot of amenities because

if you do affordable housing in the rural areas and you don't have amenities, you don't have transportation, et cetera, et cetera, water and sewer.

I mean, there are areas that possibly looking at criteria could be developed.

It's complicated because it's not a black and white decision that can be made.

That's right.

Where they have services, right?

You know, that's a great way to always say that this is why certain people should live there because that's where the services exist.

But I got to tell you something.

We provide a lot of services to our rural area.

and we're still going to be getting the updates on that through the budget.

But fire is the exact example of how we've had to provide a lot of services to the rural area where it always seems like this open, even the open land that we've conserved is a resource.

That costs us money to do with our programs.

It's subsidized.

So, you know, hence why the conversation we're going to have later about the ACE program and if we should be putting money back in it, that's a subsidy.

That's an investment.

right?

Those are public use of dollars to do something.

I don't see it as being such a black and white decision that it has to be in the comp plan, like I said earlier, but we have to wrestle with the idea of, you know,

We want folks, we say we want them to come here, we want them to live here, we have great quality of life, but we're directing all of that new growth to a specific area.

And I appreciate it.

I'm done.

I mean, it's just got to be, we got to put it out there and people need to hear us debate and we got to have the conversation about it.

And I do think we have to recognize some of the pushback that we're hearing here.

Our districts are different.

in areas are different and we just can't, it's not a broad stroke, it's not going to work.

That's why we have the criteria.

Right?

But we do not want to just continue to send certain folks to one district or two districts.

People have a right to live in different areas based on their desire, right?

And we shouldn't be saying to people that we're not going to stop people.

We don't want to stop people from building $3 million houses.

Well, I don't want to stop people from building $350,000 houses.

I'll just leave one example on the table that people can think about.

Two years, 18 months ago, two young guys came to meet with me about making a modular home neighborhood right across the street from GE on Dickerson, right at 29, where it would have had access and that's to all those services that are already in the ground right there.

it did not fall under a category in which it could be even applied for.

So in that example, that would be something we might be able to figure out a better way to be.

I just wanted to put that out there.

Exactly what we're talking about.

But it was on the wrong side of the line.

And I'm not in favor of incrementally blowing out the service area for the jurisdiction either.

We're not trying to do that, Ann, and I think throwing statements out there that scare people is just, we're not going to be taking bulldozers to steep slopes.

We'll go to, you're just looking for feedback on the transfer development rights that we have.

There are no other presentation materials on that at this point.

You have a previous slide.

Yeah, I think she did.

Yeah, I have to admit that I'm not an expert on this.

This is sort of my first foray into this discussion.

Right at first blush, I'm not opposed to this.

I am wondering a little bit though about how much we're layering on staff for you to do.

I mean we're layering lots of new proposals, new studies.

It concerns me a little bit that

I just, and I don't know how you all address that.

And I see Jody getting up.

Are you coming up Jody?

Okay.

I'll stop talking and let you speak to that because I have real concerns about this is just another layer that we need to investigate.

And it gets very confusing for me, but it's very confusing for the public too.

Welcome.

Jody Falardo, Community Development Director.

Thank you, Supervisor McKeel, for the opportunity.

Regarding transfer of development rights, it actually can be a helpful tool for us as staff.

We have a problem right now with one particular property

in the rural area that has built more housing on their property than they had development rights to build.

And they did it without permits and all kinds of other things.

They don't have a way to make it right, right now,

save taking out those two extra dwelling units.

However, if we had transfer of development rights, they could buy an additional rural area piece of land, transfer those rights onto their property, and get square with the county.

Thank you very much.

That was very helpful.

So the only thing then I'm going to add to, and it's not a question for you, but thank you.

So I would be supportive then of at least looking into this, however you all want to work your magic and go back to us.

I do have a question though.

It says,

access the option for housing types other than single family detached in receiving areas such as duplexes, accessory units, and fourplexes.

And no problem with that.

Are we ever going to get to the point where we can talk about manufactured homes?

I mean, to be perfectly honest with you, they're not the trailers of the 70s.

If we want to go back to the 70s, they are not.

And they're affordable.

And maybe this is not the place for them, but it gave me an opportunity to at least put a stake in the ground and say, I think an option for us ought to be at least in some circumstances, manufactured homes in this community.

I guess it wasn't clear enough.

Yeah, I mean, it seems like we've had this block on manufactured homes and I understand the old trailers of the past.

but even the school board's trailers, now you walk into them and you think you're in a building.

They're not the old trailers of the past and I don't want to digress down into that, but I would like to put a stake in the ground and say I'd like to have some discussions about manufactured homes, where they could go, what, I mean, and where we would put it into our documents, our guiding documents.

so you're just asking if we would I mean yeah I'm trying to get up to speed and understand the transfer development I mean I get the gist of how it was explained in here it seems I'm open to the idea I think it could be useful to us as well as we work on things so I don't see how it I couldn't find a way to say oh no that's a bad idea let me put it that way so I think it's something that should be considered and should be discussed and it was the same as when

I really hadn't had my head wrapped around the concept.

Like you had said, is it cluster development?

Is that the piece that's in the rural area that Scott Clark mentioned a few weeks ago?

So that type of development as well.

I was like, oh, that seems to make sense and be smart for our county, that type of potential.

So this seems to fall right in line with how we like to do things as well.

I would agree that it will be a lot of work and certainly been around for 20 years and people have tried, various counties have tried.

I think there's three or four counties where it actually is up and running in Virginia.

Other states where they've had fabulous success.

So the caveats for me is open land to open land only and rural area open land to growth area open land.

only would be what I would support because it's a separate question to me from the changing how we appreciate the values of modular manufactured homes as far as transfers and whatever.

Sadly, I was not successful for 30 years in changing the

give away of density from 6 to 34, because if we had had a 6 to 12, 12 to 18, 18 to 24, we would have set up a beautiful situation for this very thing.

But we just couldn't, I couldn't get there.

So anyway, that's ancient history, but it is a way perhaps to get some extra use.

But without the ability for

on a small rural lot to deal with water and sewer, contained for more than one or two possible units is a major problem.

And when there start to be failures, they cascade right down the aquifer and the groups.

So we have to, that was the basis for those kinds of decisions years ago where there was never going to be any sewer, is to say we have to have a little bit

County.

every five years or so, the staff in place does a lot of stuff and then it doesn't get beyond.

So I hope you will be more successful.

Thank you.

I want to begin by saying I think this came to us in part because of a comment I made at the

So this was, I had had a long talk with a developer who was operating in my district.

He had mentioned transferable development rights in New York City, where they're quite common.

You sell like airspace to build ground somewhere else, right?

And I had a shower thought, because this is the kind of boring person I am.

This is what my shower thoughts are, I think about land use policy.

of, oh, does this help us solve any issues that we confront with the way land is used in the rural area?

And I thought it might be worth exploring.

I do want to begin by kind of making sure I'm clarifying something based on what Supervisor Malik had just said, because she had mentioned with the caveat that it's RA to development area.

And I wanted to make sure I understood you correctly, which I understand that as being not what we're talking about, right?

This is a RA to RA.

County, New York City.

County and all in five sets and each of my acres has each of my five parcels has their intact original one development right then I can build five homes on one parcel or I can sell those rights to someone else to build five homes on one parcel.

That is my rough understanding of what we're talking about and it would be within the rural area.

and you're doing this, which means rough, rough.

I'm sure I've screwed up something.

But I want to begin by saying I do think there is a value there.

I also want to make sure we're not fooling ourselves with what we can get done with that, right?

So I think the value there, one of the main things that jumps out to me is actually a conservation value.

It will be like tool number four.

now of our different ways to preserve aggregate clumps of land.

What I'm getting at this board is that it would encourage people.

You might have individual development rights that are isolated in large tracts of something that is owned by a single body.

And they don't have a useful or effective way to extract the value of that development right that they have accidentally isolated in other persons.

This is something I can very

County.

I can clearly see based on the way subdivisions have broken up development rights over time since our growth management plan has been put in place.

This lets them extract those development rights and preserve those parcels without having to basically be like, I'm going to build my house here and interrupt this forest block because this is the only place I can use my development right.

I see a lot of value in that.

I see that as overlaying a lot with what

are scoring criteria for the ACE program, for example.

The thing I want to make sure, and this also lets us just use that land more efficiently, lets us use land that we do want to build on more efficiently.

It kind of, it slightly discourages the way that the only kind of thing we see now are in the rural area are normally quite large developments from people who are retiring here and have the ability to identify these development rights, the lawyers, the money, the surveyors.

I do want to just call attention to the fact that you still need the same amount of land.

It just doesn't all have to be in the same place, which means while I think there might be a cost reduction on residential housing, new developments that can be higher concentration in the rural area, it's not going to be the same kind of benefits we see from like up zoning in the development area because the

the cost of land would still be roughly factored into the cost of those development rights I would assume when they are being traded by people on an individual market.

I imagine they would be slightly less than the cost of as in like one development right is probably going to have a lesser value than two acres of land that have a development right just because someone still wants their front yard that is two acres but point being it is still going to be

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

is kind of a way to support this regardless, though.

We talked about instances where people, because they lack that expertise, do things that are illegal.

I have a constituent who calls me somewhat frequently, somewhat, not very frequently, but I'm quite fond of him.

He lives out on Glendale Road, out country in Keene, and he was telling me, he's like, I don't think

Albemarle County, he says to me as if I'm not representing Albemarle County.

I don't think Albemarle County likes for locals to still build here and to still live here and like shared anecdotal stories about like neighbors, friends, trying to build homes for their children on adjacent parcels that they have and not being able to figure it out.

not having the right development rights to do so.

And I think there's a lot there, but I see this as one additional way to try and kind of get at that nut and crack it, figure out what are some of the barriers that are actually standing in the way of people being able to do what they want to do with their land, build a home for their family.

And if

If the answer can be, oh, this person wasn't able to build a home for his daughter next door to him because he doesn't actually realize that he has exhausted his development rights, even though he seems to have the right amount of acres, then he can buy a development right, which he can't currently do.

So I see value in that.

I'm supportive of the transfer of development rights within the rural area.

I think that's something that frankly makes sense.

It's not going to happen.

I don't think a lot.

I do also wanted to address the issue that

University, Supervisor McKeel brought up, you can have people, they can buy a piece of land and they can put, you know, build a $350 home.

That's not the problem.

The issue we have is whether or not you can have large developments in the rural area, which would, I believe, I don't think you could build a large apartment complex or townhomes and not have sewer and water, right?

OK, so that's my concern is that that's only going to be able to happen to be able to have people live somewhere else if you have the water and sewer so you can have large complexes.

Otherwise, someone can put a home down or build a home, of course, in the rural areas on a small piece of land.

But I do agree with Supervisor Raquille in allowing

and many manufactured homes.

I think that's something or even tiny homes.

I mean, not everyone needs a large house.

Not everybody wants a large house.

Everything seems to be downsizing and have, have, allow some variety as far as home types in the rural area or maybe even the development area.

Thank you.

I want to come back.

This really took me by surprise.

I understand the concern that an existing

Group of Homes was developed without development rights and now needs to find a way to remedy that without destruction of the homes.

I mean, were there no building permits as well?

I've really loathed to make a policy that somehow gives a way for, without sufficient penalties for this sort of thing activity to take place without the guardrails that we've put in place.

for this.

So I'm going to start there and just say this really makes me nervous to try to act on the behalf of someone who's not going through the processes.

But that said, the TDR process that we described has some appeal.

I

I'm going to try to tie this discussion to the previous discussion.

I am not in favor of rural to rural arbitrarily, but I don't see that as being what's proposed here.

It talks about develop, sending and receiving zones.

The location matters tremendously.

and my support for this idea actually goes along with the idea of well if we have areas that are in the urban ring but just over the line and they would be right for denser development, one of the mechanisms that might enable that would be negotiation of transfer of development rights from other areas.

That said, I will also say that if you look back at the decisions in the 80s to decide how many development rights lots have, there was always an expectation that even though a lot may have, and we are talking about small-lot development rights, I assume, that a lot may have five small-lot development rights, but they weren't necessarily all usable, and they were understood at that time not to be all usable.

So this is a mechanism for allowing somebody to cash out on something that they didn't have before.

I would tread gently and make sure we know what we're doing because that wasn't the idea back in 1980 that necessarily everybody would put five houses on places that had no ability to support them.

And so this is suggesting that there's somehow a way to do that by selling the development right.

That seems unfair to me.

and those are my primary comments about this.

As it's phrased in the attachment, it says, recommendation to be added to further study TDRs and evaluate their potential feasibility and effectiveness.

And that is what I hope we're looking at at this point.

So, and yeah, that's those are my comments.

So on the second page of attachment D, it refers to receiving areas in the rural area or the development area, which is why I made the comments I made.

It's right there.

And I think that the reason why the development area would be highest preference for me is because it is going to help.

I had constituents of Sugar Hollow who went through what Mr. Pruitt was describing of the strange contorted 150-year-old lot sizes and getting a place with a building spot where, you know, sun could have their house.

And county staff was, it was cumbersome, but county staff was helpful and made.

It took a while, but we got that done.

So the other thing is for the situation with the no permits, two or three times at least in the

time that I've been on the board, people have come to the board and asked for an additional development right.

Two in the Scottsville district when Lindsay was on the board, and they were for building a house for elders on the site or for a young person to care for the elder and the other house.

And those were approved.

So there are options that exist already.

Perhaps we need to do a better job of making sure that people understand what those options are.

But those are just

thinks they're important.

So the relevant, the 2015 statement that I think is important is those redirect development potential from sections of the rural area with high value natural and cultural resources to locations outside the rural area.

I still support that.

Thank you.

I'm not sure if we've given you what you need.

Yes, we have what we need.

Then we are on to the next topic, I believe, and then we will come back to sort of the documents for additional discussion.

although we may take a recess after this topic, see how it goes.

Small rural scale uses.

This is where we were talking about examples and particularly restaurants, restaurants at wineries and other issues.

So I'll turn it over to Supervisor McHugh.

My mic back here.

County.

Help me understand, well, I'm sorry, I need to push this back so I can see it and still get to my mic.

I'm sorry.

Non-residential use examples, so the examples you give, daycare, small offices, restaurants at wineries and country stores, that you are saying here that you're going to come up with some criteria

that's, which is really important.

Yeah.

Sure.

Some of these uses

For example, country stores that have been historically used as a tavern or a country store can redevelop as a country store with a special use permit.

However, if someone wanted to develop a country store in a

building or on a property that had not been historically used as a country store or tavern or inn.

There is not a mechanism for them to do that at this time even with a special use permit as an example.

Got you.

So at first blush, yes, I'm in favor, just to simplify, yes, I'm in favor of this.

I have no strong objections to looking at this and establishing some criteria, as you were discussing, yes.

The one that would give me pause are restaurants at Wineries just because of the increase in traffic for folks, but it would be interesting to have that discussion and see how that might.

I'm not taking it off the table right now, so I guess that's what I'm saying.

We certainly have Wineries that are for all intents and purposes restaurants.

just saying.

So I'll let it go with that for right now.

I won't belabor this and we'll see what everybody else has to say.

Thank you.

I mean with what you're proposing I think at a minimum I would be fine with it.

I think restaurants at wineries is a different category from these other three things.

We treat wineries and cideries differently than other things and it may just mean that we have to come up with our own criteria for that specific type of property.

the problem or it's not a problem the struggle I have with daycare small offices, country stores those came into existence because basically what we're saying is we only will allow reuse of those type of places where they already exist in a lot of ways which is really limiting based if you think about how a country store or even a daycare or some sort of office that has existed out in a rural area came to be had more to probably do with the individual

and they figured out a way to make something work and they own the property already.

So now we're almost making it has to be a business investment.

You have to go and take over a country store and figure out how to make it viable versus allowing somebody goes you know what I have three or four different things that could work at this location and one of them could be a nice little country store which if it's just a business person I don't see even sometimes how folks make these things viable if there's not a certain amount of

just volume coming through.

I just don't see how it could work.

But if somebody had a plan somewhere where maybe one of these things didn't necessarily exist, and they have three or four different things going on, and then it's like, you know what, I've always wanted to run a country store, and boy, this would be a great spot to do it since I own this land, but no country store has ever existed here before.

We don't have any venue to allow that to happen, is my understanding.

And I think that we're basically, that's the struggle I have, because okay, we're basically putting out or extinguishing the flame that existed for that thing to come into existence in the first place.

which was personal entrepreneurship and probably had more to do with individualism than the location of now where a historic country store happens to exist.

So I would be open minded to say yes.

just like we do a lot of things at this board that says, well, bring it forward.

Let's look at the location.

Let's see what you're thinking.

Take into consideration that this is, and even now with, unless I'm mistaken, this could fall under how you don't necessarily, you can limit some things time-wise based on the state code, right?

So knowing then you could kind of isolate it to the particular applicant or something, I think even has more appeal.

I mean, I'm not going to sit here and go, you know, I'm opposed to just the reuse.

I think we at least have to do that.

But I would be open minded to considering other thoughts.

Just, there's creative people out there that could figure out how to make some of these things that people like.

But to just, I mean, in this day and age to set up and to have a country store with a little restaurant in it, and I remember reading somewhere where it'd be like, allow it to have four tables.

How is that economically going to be possible?

You have to have other factors that combine to allow it to happen, which is what I think has happened before, where why these things came to be.

Well, I've said it.

Thank you.

So I guess every one of these examples that is in the Whitehall district or places that I see in other districts were all in place before 1980.

I mean, for the medical offices in Earleysville, the post office in Earleysville, all these things that have been there, I guess they've been there 45 years and the time flies.

But I was shocked to hear that, because I think I would look at all of those except the third bullet to say they're already

there.

And so I guess, I don't know, for example, I'm not picking on the Jewett District, but I've wondered how the permanent farmer's market structure, commercial use with freezers and everything else was allowed in the farmland there when it was supposed to be a tent.

So, you know, this, something's happened that we're not aware of, actually, because people ask me and I say I have no idea.

So that's a new country store, 24-7, or a full, not seasonal, let's put it that way, year round, in a rural area right there.

And maybe it's a great place for it, but I don't know how the process happened when everybody is telling, being told today, that nobody can do that.

So there's a question I have.

I have no winery in the Whitehall District has reached out to me and say please we want to have a restaurant.

I do know that 15, 20 years ago there was a big push for this and the rules of VDACs are very clear, 15 seats and fewer, you don't have to have the triple sinks and all the restaurant stuff, which basically is out of financial reach for many, which is why the limitations at the dear beloved baseball store sort of got out of hand and people were bringing their own chairs to listen to music on Friday nights because they were not in the first 15.

So anyway, all of these things, I get how we got there.

Financially viable is an absolute concern because I know for the medical building in Earleysville, the lower level is that empty for two years.

It's not good for any building.

until actually a electrical supply or something moved in there and had that office.

And I guess because it was pre-existing commercial, that's how that got to happen.

So anyway, what are the limits going to be?

Is a question I would love to get an answer to when you come back with more detail.

So are we talking about large footprint gas stations?

are we talking about fast food restaurants?

And those were both things that were talked about specifically in the 80s and 90s in earlier comp plan things because people in the rural area did not want them.

Now maybe those things would be limited by the corporate investment financial return structure, but we don't know that for sure.

So I will be interested to learn how we could negotiate that because

those were two very, very clear examples that keep coming back in correspondence to me.

And as I said, I am, since I've had absolutely no outreach from any of the wineries that they want to do this, I'm very concerned that we are changing the rules to legitimize activity that is not legal and acceptable, and I'm not interested in going there.

Thank you.

At first blush, I think I share most of my peers' opinions on this and that I see the value of this and have some reservations about restaurants, which seem like they're different in kind from some of the others.

I don't think that could be overcome by the criteria that we might set forth, but that is where I am.

I mentioned this, I also want to just clarify my understanding is that this is a separate discussion from any conversation we've had about possible

rural area commercial use clustering.

I forget what the name of the day of that is.

Rural communities.

And this is a discreet conversation from that.

This would be not tethered to a specific place.

It would just be wherever the entrepreneur feels they can make a buck, make a financially viable enterprise.

Worry that as a community and as a board, sometimes we take for granted the value that we extract, the value that we are getting out of.

County, grandfathered nonconforming uses.

We have so many fixtures in Albemarle County that we take for granted that are grandfathered nonconforming uses.

They are everywhere.

They are deeply ubiquitous in our culture and our community.

And if they closed and were shuttered for a year, then we'd lose them for two years.

Pardon me.

They were shuttered for two years because, I don't know, someone couldn't make the rent payment, someone couldn't figure it out, someone died and it took a while to sort out the inheritance.

They're gone.

They're gone forever.

I don't think that's good policy.

I think if we have something and we like it, then we should figure out how to keep it.

We should figure out how to do it again.

I think when we look at these kind of uses, like Supervisor Malik was discussing in the Whitehall District, you know, a rural large animal vet's office.

Great.

I like that.

I see the value of that in the Whitehall District.

I see

then why would we stand in the way of allowing that to happen?

So that's where I come down on this, especially because it sounds like we're going to still retain a significant level of discretion, right?

This is still going to be by a special use permit.

Yeah, we have discretion.

We will continue to be exercising discretion and oversight on this.

I don't see a significant concern.

that logic could still be applied to the restaurants at wineries concept, but I do just want to that is that is traffic and that is water use specifically the water use I don't I'm not a geologist I don't know enough about how our water deposits work as I'm frequently reminded when I talk to people who are more familiar with how wells operate

I don't know realistically how feasible this is in a lot of locations.

I don't know what's out of the constraints and what's out of the specific stipulations that we would really need to work on.

As Supervisor Malik mentioned, I also know that there are a significant state regulatory framework around agritourism and on farm winery operations that I do not profess to be expert on.

I do not profess to understand how that intersects with

with restaurant uses.

And so none of that prevents me from saying I'm in favor of it.

Thank you.

Supervisor Lepisto-Curdley.

Well, I think entrepreneurism really comes into this, and I really am in favor of looking at these non-residential

examples.

And I know these are only examples because I know there are other people out there, entrepreneurs that are coming up with businesses, offices, something to put in a rural area that will work.

And I think that's something that we should be promoting and not stifling.

I know the EDA is very, they're really pushing agritourism and that's where, because everyone seems to bring up the wineries, you can set the criteria, we can set the criteria.

and not have, because I don't think anyone wants restaurants all over the rural area.

It would be really, we could limit it to those who can have a restaurant, because frankly, we're losing business, a lot of business to a

winery that is in another county that's bringing in like eight million a year.

We're bringing in maybe two million a year because we don't have a restaurant.

There's already a location there where they grow their own grapes, they process their own grapes.

It's all local to be able to have a restaurant and not just finger food.

Actually, I've been to one winery

and they would never be able to have a restaurant.

They're not large enough.

But they serve oyster crackers.

So I have a tasting and I shouldn't be driving because oyster crackers just don't do it.

But to be able to have a full scale restaurant with local wines served at that restaurant also, I mean, that's huge.

Would there be many?

No.

Would you take into consideration noise?

Lights, water usage, you would take all of that into consideration.

These would be under a special use permit.

So we would have control over whether or not something will work.

But why put the kibosh on something and just say, no, no, no, we don't want that.

Let's explore it.

Let's see if that's going, you know, if that would work.

That's a great economic driver, frankly.

and a big boost for agritourism.

And like I said, would there be many?

Nope, because that's very expensive, especially with the VDAC criteria.

Be very expensive.

And I look forward to seeing other examples that would possibly come through, too, that would work for entrepreneurs.

Thank you.

I would just echo a lot of the comments that have been made by the other supervisors, but I think one nuance is that since this is a, we're talking about a special use permit situation, it would be helpful, I believe, to begin to delineate the kind of criteria that could be used by staff, planning commission, and the board in looking at these special use permits.

So, for example, there was mention about grandfathering non-conforming uses, and I appreciate that.

they're grandfathered but if there's some that fail and some entrepreneur can identify that well that was a grandfathered use that used to be approved it's gone out of business I'd like to move it over here that might be a factor that weighs in favor of saying well okay that's not really adding additional businesses to the rural area that's removing one from one location to another I think that we talked about rural communities briefly I think that locating them

.

The restrictions on their footprint that you've mentioned here, the environmental objectives or historic of those again are factors to consider that I think are important in helping to not just open up special use permits without giving some clear limits to what kinds of things.

I do know that I appreciate the PEC's comments that there are no examples being given of businesses that are not appropriate and it might be helpful to take a look at that.

I share the concerns about water and traffic with restaurants but again I'm open to looking at the factors and saying that that's one factor that weighs heavily against

are arbitrarily allowing a restaurant at an area that never had one.

But, you know, there may be ways to overcome that.

Are there others?

May I leave a question on the table for probably Attorney Herrick?

I don't

I don't know the answer.

There you go.

I'm sorry, could you clarify when you say those, you five people can do this, Supervisor Malek?

Well, the comment said, oh, it's too expensive, so there'll only be a couple of them.

I mean, I'm just thinking.

to legitimize.

No, no, no.

It would be the criteria through VDAC, through us.

It would be the criteria that would make it, because if you have a tasting room, that's one set of criteria.

If you have a restaurant, you have to meet state standards.

VDAC, you have to have the hoods, the fans, and everything.

Those are a lot of money.

Before we take the recess, my understanding is the next item would be to go through the drafts that were provided and see what additional comments, which I propose to do sort of document by document.

Correct.

That's all right.

Okay.

Then 15 minutes and back here.

My understanding is that we're, you know, at this point still in the AC44 topics for the evening, the chapters that we've received in the packet are next for discussion and we will start with the

Pages on the growth management policy will go around then we'll do the rural area land use go around etc And we'll start with Supervisor McKeel if she is ready With any additional comments on the growth management policy If you're not ready we can come back to you.

Let me get my sheet out.

I think I have just a couple of notes this time.

You'll be happy to know.

Oh, we talked about that already.

I'm still coming back to the opening, this opening paragraph to put the watershed protection in there because it's very meaningful to, this is where things have come up four or five times and I'm concerned that they're, I'm going to keep mentioning them until I,

at the bottom of page two it shows fire rescue police and health care and I didn't know what the health care was based on because there aren't any county services health care in the that we provide in the growth area in the rural area so I was just that's something that you can let us know what that determination is

and I already mentioned in the first paragraph on page three just about talking about the down zoning so that people know where it came from and the paragraph on page four I'm okay with.

Thank you.

I can go ahead and take it.

So I just want to clarify.

I am looking at attachment E summary of revisions.

The question to the board is do the document revisions additions align to your expectations and I'm looking at

first bullet of four, which is growth management policy.

Looking at attachment E, the growth management policy, set of revisions, I see only three things.

I think I'm confused.

I'm looking at the same thing.

Attachment E says summary of revisions, but now we're actually, since we're doing the revisions in the document, we're doing the documents one at a time.

That's what we're looking for.

But he just mentioned that the revisions are already discussed and has to be so that we don't have to ask what's new.

We still can make comments even if it's not a new revision.

I was sure exactly.

OK.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

Sorry, excuse me.

Okay, Supervisor Galloway, this is a discussion of the growth management policy section that was received in your package.

Just that section.

I'm good with it as it stands now to take out and see what kind of response we'll get as we continue to move forward.

As we take it out to the public and hear what the response is.

this particular document had a lot of really good information for the public that I'm not sure that they have us not that I mean we have so much information we've gotten on AC 44 but I think for the public to see this and I was hoping to have more of a discussion about this

County.

Publicly, just because I thought it would be good for the public to hear some of this information that I think they've been missing.

Because it ties back to our greater discussion today and why we have been addressing certain issues, right?

The information and the data in this particular document.

So I can just let it go with that.

I don't know.

I think those were my

I think, and it may be budget, could be the place to talk about it, but it says there, if you're on page three of that, to summarize updates to the policy tax, then there's three, four bullet points.

And inside the third one, it says adding language for small scale, I am in the right chapter, right?

And limited public services in the rural area.

I'm getting more with conversations around services and how both

Folks, developmentary folks and Royer folks use services back and forth in certain ways that when I read limited public services and quotes, I don't know what that means, how that's defined, specifically in Albemarle.

So I'm just calling the language out because if I don't know what it means or what it's defined, I don't expect others to

and then when programming resources are figuring out where tax dollars go, how are we doing in some of these type of language phrases that we put into other guiding documents?

Thank you.

Could I address that for a moment?

Sure.

Okay.

All right, let me find it.

Hold on a minute.

And this one I will say that we've

We had in our packets a version that was an earlier version, but we did receive the correct version before that.

And the correct version is the version that's on.

And I think you've got the right version, Supervisor Matlow.

Okay.

What's online is correct.

It was only in those who got paper copies, there was one paper copy that went out.

An earlier version.

So I'm looking at, just to make sure I'm where everybody else is, I'm at the rural area, right?

Yes.

And we have all of these... Right.

If there are additional... So we have the... I'm looking at the action items under goal statement and all that.

That's where we're going right now.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

So I'm on page eight.

Yes.

That's the first of those.

Okay.

All right.

So we can, all right.

Yeah.

Um, um,

I guess I'll just start with a question about on action 1.1, and I'm not going to go through each one of these by any means, but I am curious.

Action 1.1, we talk about commercial forestry operations.

And my question about that is pretty broad.

It seems like to me that

at least the commercial forestry operations that I have seen have left moonscapes at least several of them one of them we approved a solar farm and I guess I know they're not all that that's not happening everywhere I'm not saying that but I'm just wondering if how we would go about

What's the process to follow those commercial forestry operations?

Because I'm am I wrong in that a lot of that has at the end the end result is temporary?

That's it's not I mean maybe maybe I'm just off base here completely and you guys can stop me Unfortunately, I'm you don't know where I don't not that particular industry

and I'm probably bringing up something that I shouldn't be bringing up at this time, but I get worried when I see the outcome from Timbering looking like the moonscape that we saw down in the southern part of the county.

Oh, I hear some, or see somebody walking up.

And Bart, you can tell me I'm way off base, but this made me think about it and I just, I can remember when I went to New Zealand and they, Timbering is their

World.

And they had specific processes.

You would drive down the road, and you would see a forest.

And then the next plot of land, you would see it.

And the next stage meant that the stumps were there.

And then you would see, and it was all very organized.

And it didn't just leave moonscapes.

So help me with this.

So Bartzloboda, MPD Director of Community Development.

Long story short, because I know you're trying to get through this, is the regulations are just different.

That's what I saw in New Zealand, and it was just wonderful.

Of course, they also log their steep slopes with helicopters.

University of Virginia University Foundation Compliance.

I thought that was a really great idea.

The only thing I would hope is that with those annual meetings, which I would support, I'm assuming they might be through LUPIC or maybe not, yeah, through LUPIC.

Potentially yes, yeah.

Because I want to make sure that updates are provided.

especially to the Board of Supervisors, but certainly the public, because we're getting updates from Lupic as well.

But if we're adding that, I just, it occurred to me.

It'd be interesting to see those updates.

So if we look at, I'm going on now to action the twos, 2.1 through 2.4.

I'm going to say again for this Supervisor,

My desire is to adopt the Chesapeake Bay Ordinance.

It cuts to the chase, it gets it done.

and I think in this climate with the federal, not knowing what's going to happen at the federal level, this is already established and this is really our best bet and I like it and I don't think I need to go into details about it but smaller counties than us have figured out how to do it and it takes staff out of incrementally doing this, what you all have been spending time and hours and years doing

and it gives us criteria and we can just adopt it and it's not that you all won't have anything to do with it again but I think it simplifies the process and it makes it very clear for the public and so that's my comment I guess on probably a good portion of that.

And I really did want to ask you a question.

It talks about evaluating special use permits based on, so I'm looking at 2.3, as identified in the Biodiversity Action Plan or Designated and Endangered Species by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service.

So the recommendation is to use both.

Would one not

I'm always trying to figure out how to simplify things without losing the importance of what we're doing.

All right, so I'm going to now, I'm still on page nine and I'm looking, is this the way you wanted me to go through this?

We will have four o'clock, which is less than 20 minutes.

We need to switch to a different topic.

Well, that's all right.

So I'll go through it quickly.

So we're talking, I'm talking about the action numbers, the threes.

Reactivate ACE acquisition of conservation easement program.

I will go back to what I said the last time that's a budgetary decision.

I'd like to have that discussion during budget cycle.

I am not automatically going to agree to do that because that looks like, to me, that's just something we're going to build in and do every year.

I'm not interested in that from this supervisor.

And I have questions about all of these, but in an effort to save time, I will let it go with a comment that I made that this

The ACE program is for me a budgetary decision and I'm not interested in supporting that section right now.

For, let me just see here.

This gets into, I think I'm okay right here for this one.

and five, I'm sorry, I'm being so slow on this.

You can tell this is not my skill set.

And I actually had a discussion and I had it all figured out in my mind.

So I took that other one out and put this one in.

Okay.

That's fine.

So there weren't very many change.

I mean, not a lot of them were different.

Yes.

So this is, this works for me.

because my nose were to change.

Okay, we're good.

I'm all right on that one.

Yeah, I was so certain I had the right copy and then I switched it out.

And then seven, am I changing on seven, Mimi?

I think I'm sorry.

Yeah, seven, I am

The only discussion I have about seven is that I am not as supportive of looking at the shadow plan.

I'm going to go back to that again.

I think the Yancey Mills plan is a much better option because of the agriculture in that area.

and how we could actually tie in to agricultural manufacturing is not the right word, but certainly it would seem like to me that's a better location if we're talking about the interstate and their changes.

Okay.

Yep.

And I should make the comment that to the extent that we get to 7.4 on the interchanges that there is a map that was at your place and shows that the areas that are being considered interchanges is smaller than what was shown in the earlier draft.

There it is.

I think in the interest of time I don't have anything here that is problematic for me well except one which I'll speak to in a second but I just want to call out a number five just just so I'm perfectly clear page five you know it says discourage new residential development we're really talking we're not saying residences we're saying subdivisions and all of those type of things

because then over in the bullets it says discourage residential growth and development and the related demand for increased public services.

So this is all driven by the idea that where you have more population, you have more need for services.

I just want to make the point that we've been discouraging new residential development in the rural area for quite a while.

That's been our whole standing philosophy and the increase for public services has only increased.

So it's not just population density that brings on the demand for public services.

So I bring it up because I don't want to necessarily just be buying into that philosophy that there's only one thing that brings that increased demand along.

Good, bad, or indifferent?

The fact that we've got volunteerism dropping in the rural area,

requires an increased demand for public services, and that has nothing to do with population density.

So this won't be mindful of that.

The place under 3-1, is it 3-1?

Yeah, I don't know.

I guess I don't see anywhere.

All of this stuff costs money.

Every action item in here.

In one way or another costs us money.

But this is like the really one of the few places, and I haven't seen some of the other chapters, so maybe it's true in some of these other chapters.

But when it says source predictable funding for easement purchases, that's not something I'm putting in a comp plan.

If that's a budget decision.

It's clearly been a budget decision because of how we've handled it over the last four or five years.

So, you know, I'm fine for putting in their land conservation programs and to put all the different things in there.

But if we put it in here, we're basically saying that we're going to budget for this every single year.

And that where I have a problem with that.

Like I'll be, and I'll tell you, I'll call out where I'll be looking for it.

Does it say source predictable funding for affordable housing initiatives in the affordable housing chapter?

I don't know.

But I'm just calling out for those that would like that phrase there.

We're going to be having that discussion in a couple other places, too, where we need to be sourcing predictable funding for.

Because this is a statement to folks that we're going to do it.

There's no qualifier here, says if budgets allow or based on future decisions.

This is saying we're going to do it.

And I get a little uneasy about planning documents dictating budget type of decisions.

Okay, oops, caught me napping here.

Let me zoom back to where I'm supposed to be.

All right, I'll just go through here.

So on the top, wait a minute, hold on.

I have a list, but I'll leave it alone.

On page five, your bulleted list, encourage uses of distributed power sources.

Is that on private property for personal use?

Is that what you're asking about?

Talking about there, the third bullet from the bottom.

or is that something about utility solar without using those terms?

I'm sorry, which bullets are you looking at?

Introduction to the chapter.

I mean, I don't know what the county's role is in encouraging people to put up solar in their backyard.

But I mean, it's fine.

I just didn't know if there was some program I didn't know about because I don't know.

So as long as that's not something referring to something else, I don't know.

The last bullet, consider adjustments to the development area boundaries.

The board decided pretty clearly a number of months ago that this would not be a decision involved with this complaint.

And yet, every time we turn around,

It's in there again.

So I'm just protesting that because the board has decided and maybe we need a vote.

I don't know.

Page six, seven, sorry.

This is a language thing.

I would ask you to think about marketing local foods depends upon

It doesn't depend upon.

It's helped by those things you mentioned, but lots of direct sales and sales go on here and have historically.

So I think this is creating a problem where there isn't one necessarily, and I'm also concerned that we keep the scale of things very much in our mind, such as where it's appropriate so it's not a burden to the

neighborhood.

In 1.1, a second bullet, adding biodiversity.

We've mentioned that several times as well.

It is important to have that in that list.

A couple of words isn't going to be a problem.

2.1, we talked about the clearer description of the 21-acre minimum and 5-2-acre exemptions because in a smaller lot

It's the five-two-acre exemptions that are going to count, not the 21-acre minimum.

So we're almost leaving no guidance at all for the smaller, the fewer than 50-acre things.

So that's why I keep bringing up that using the language from 1980, as Bill Fritz described about what the minimum is, is 21 acres, with five-two-acre exemptions possible on some laws.

It's not a two-acre minimum.

It's a 21-acre minimum.

And the more we talk about it in that way, I think it will help people understand.

2.3, someone already brought that up.

If we have the authority to do it for all building permits, I would be happy.

Because I think everyone needs to buy into doing their bit.

3.1.

We talk about climate, but if we don't have conservation continuing to happen, we will have no climate program that is affordable and be able to be meaningful.

So that sequestration, all of the ecological ecosystem benefits that conserve land and well-managed open land and forestry land provide is something that I hope we will continue to value.

I don't take the third bullet as a must-do.

I think comp plans are aspirational and always have been in my mind.

That's what I've always understood.

Scale is a real concern in 4.2 because while

A moderate-sized processing plant is one thing.

A CAFO with a processing plant on the side is not, as far as the impact on everything from roads to water to neighbors, survival.

I mean, the misery down in Mr. Pruitt's district from the 12,000 chickens is an example of that.

County.

selling their stuff, shipping it from home, the craft people, Chuck Brinnell, the world-renowned leather crafter, the country who sends his stuff all over the place.

These are for big locations which have a lot of impact on their surrounding area.

And almost there.

11, let's see.

Okay, 5.1.

If adaptive reuse is not feasible, that phrase troubles me a lot because this is a sentence about historic structures and buildings and I don't want it to be understood by anybody that we're saying it's fine to buy something and tear it down.

If you don't want to maintain it, please don't buy it.

But focusing on the renovation of the historic structure is something I would wholeheartedly support.

But this not feasible, whether it's critical slopes or any number of different things, always takes us down a dark tunnel that I would worry about.

The last line in 5.1 that has been mentioned already, I think someone mentioned it, maybe not in relation to this.

Some uses should be prohibited.

It's not always performance standards for any old thing, but there have got to be some boundaries about what would be going on.

And 6.2, does this include glamping?

Because glamping didn't get anywhere four or five years ago when people wanted to bring something that was totally on top of the land.

So if that's something that could be included, then there's no attachment to the

property.

Page 12, the last bullet at the top, economic vitality for heritage properties.

So it goes to what I said a minute ago.

It's not the county taxpayers' responsibility to ensure people have a profit when they buy heritage property.

So I'll just leave it at that.

I just don't think that that's something we should be

guaranteed to anybody.

Emphasis in 7.1 on schools and firehouses, parish houses, country stores, existing buildings where people gather can be improved after the derecho in 2011 or whenever it was.

We talked about improving the facilities at firehouses so they would have a better chance to be gathering places when

The power was out and it was 99 degrees for seven days.

You know, that people could actually go and get a shower, that kind of thing.

That's just what I have in my mind when I'm talking about these resilience hubs in existing facilities rather than building new ones.

7.3, I would be very strongly against starting that again because I think Tori was here when we went around and around and around the axle on this.

several years ago and got absolutely nowhere.

So I hope that we set that aside and consider to look at, continue to look at those one at a time as a landowner comes forward.

And as far as 7.4, I'm not thrilled about taking up either one of the exits, but the work was done in 2015 on Yancy.

It's in the drinking water watershed, all of that white area.

below the blue on the map, slopes straight down to Stockton Creek, which goes straight into the Meachums, which goes straight into the Rivanna.

So that has got to be considered if we're talking about doing anything in that white zone there.

And so that is my summary.

Thank you.

looking at the list of changes, I don't have anything I think I would call out as something I would disagree with to take the privilege of just a few brief comments.

I would respectfully disagree with Supervisor Malek on the adaptive reuse element.

I do appreciate the

I think narrowly construed caveat carve out that is in that action item that would allow the demolition and reconstruction of a historic building if it is not able to be used for for the new purpose.

I mentioned that because I could see the alternative would be something that contributes to additional rural blight if something cannot be used for a purpose and the

we do not allow it to be destroyed and reconstructed for a commercial purpose, then I could see it just hanging out and then we have to pay to destroy it, as has happened with buildings in the rural area recently.

So I would respectfully push back on that one piece.

And I would also just

I mention this because if the public does not know, this is something we get some frequent emails about, and it's something I feel quite passionately about, and that's 7.2 rural communities, whatever we're calling them today.

I continue to think that these are really essential in how we make our rural areas thriving and succeed.

I was visiting one of our neighbors.

I was talking with Supervisor Reed in Nelson County, and we met at the Rockfish Valley Community Center.

Nelson is almost entirely rural area, but they have a network of small private nonprofit community centers that are not currently receiving government support that basically do what we're talking about.

They're fairly low footprint things.

This Rockfish Community Center had a coffee shop.

It had multiple rooms that the public could rent from the nonprofit for various events and community events.

It had a small restaurant that didn't have seating, but you could pick up something to go.

It had like a mineral store.

Thrift Store and all quite compactly contained and there were people coming through and it served as a focal point for the community in that rural area.

That is a really excellent thing.

I think we have things that are comparable that have occurred kind of just incidentally in our community.

The example I always give in Albemarle County, the one that pops in my mind is the crossroads in the Samuel Miller district.

We all love Dr. Ho's pizza.

And it's kind of doing something similar, but wouldn't it be great if we could do something with a little bit more intentionality to that?

I still feel like very strongly connected to this and I want to just emphasize that again here from the dais because I know it's something we get pushed back from very specific members of the community with some regularity and I also mentioned that just

to speak to folks who are involved in planning.

That means that the small area plans for the rural area are going to be immensely important, because the way 7.2 is constructed harks back to the small area plans, and I can picture what the audience might look like if we aren't very intentional about how we develop that.

I know it's going to be the same, three people who send me emails frequently opposing crossroad communities.

and those are valuable inputs.

They should be in that room but we know that there's, I know that there's hundreds of other people in the rural area who would love a community center or something resembling that where they could gather and have these kind of opportunities that other people in other communities have.

Thank you.

Supervisor LaPizzo, currently.

Thank you very much.

I don't disagree with your comments.

If we could go to 3.1, I agree with taking or not having these source predicaments.

County, New York, New

and the big thing is to include the completion of the scoring system.

That's something that was missing from the last ACE committee when it was a couple years ago, but that's something I think that needs to be instituted is the scoring system, which I think would greatly help.

But I do agree not, it's a budget issue, so whether or not it gets funded, I agree with that part.

4.5.

I think that is just saying that if you have a special event on a historic property or heritage property, you have to have ingress and egress onto a V dot road, correct?

I would say there are a number of, at least in my district, but there are a number of them around, maybe it should be

to be able to do that by-ride or special use permit to have that.

The other one is, I'm sorry, excuse me, notes, notes, notes.

and the last one is the 7.4 developed small area plan.

I agree.

I don't see any on the one for Shadwell.

I don't see any agricultural, semi-cultural related industries in that area being available.

I will say I do appreciate the new revised map because that was causing

anxiety amongst a lot of the residents because the worry was sprawl, you know, you're doing that.

If you take a look at the map, the red area is already designated, that's at the very upper right-hand corner of the red spot, that's where the comfort in is, and right next to it are three homes.

They all want to be in the, and it's already designated highway commercial.

The circle now goes to that's Hunter's Way, that's if you know where the UPS is, that's that light blue section there.

I would like to see, and I don't know if we'd have as much opposition if we just narrowed it to

the Comfort Inn, three homes next to it, and the area just south of that, which is Lego Drive South, and Coors, that's part of the Coors building there.

If that was the area that we studied for, it's already designated highway commercial.

If we just studied that area,

then that I think that would prove to a lot of people, frankly, we're not going further east.

So that would be my recommendation is just to narrow the study area.

If you're going to do it, my preference is not to do it at all.

But if you're going to do it to narrow it.

And that.

Okay.

Wait, 4.5?

again.

Yes, I'm in my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I do have one little question.

This is for Supervisor McKeel.

Regarding the forestry and what you observed in New Zealand, you know, in sections, is it because maybe our areas of forestry are owned by different people?

At least they're owned by the government, the property, the lands owned by the government.

But you're not suggesting not having forestry because we need that.

I was just concerned about some of the moonscapes that I've seen after some of the timbering that we had.

Got it.

Thank you.

I'm not going to take much time here.

I'm going to double down on Supervisor Malick's comment about just taking out the on page five and the list of bullets that consider adjustments to development area boundaries because that's discussed elsewhere and I don't want to suggest that that's what we're trying to do here.

I'm better with the map.

I'm treating things like this map and a lot of these bullets and one of these action items.

The way I read them is, you know, update the zoning code.

It doesn't mean that we need to discuss right now what all the details of those updates are going to be.

There'll be time for that when those updates are coming before us, not necessarily now.

That said, I would just comment on sourcing predictable funding for easement purchases that I thought a lot of that in the past had been leveraging external funds and that that was something that we were trying to identify as how we could leverage external funds.

I still feel an action 4.1, and I'm probably alone on this, but when it says use land conservation tools to reduce the conversion of rural land,

to things such as residential and commercial that large-scale utility just kind of jumps out at me as contradictory to what we said elsewhere about how we review those projects.

And so I'm not sure why that is treated the same as reducing conversion otherwise.

And those are

I just worry in action 5.1 that you have a reference to a page number, which has changed from one document to the next.

There's a feature for that in Word.

Excuse me?

There's a feature for that.

I forget what the command is called.

Oh, yeah.

And I'm sorry, can I just, real quickly, talking about page numbers, it would be very helpful if these drafts could have a date.

That would be lovely.

Thank you.

That's an easy one.

Chair, could I ask for clarification on one item?

Sure.

The Shadwell study.

I heard kind of half and half.

Half of you all said, you know, don't study it.

And half didn't comment.

So are we going to put that in the context of action 7.4?

7.4.

Yes, I think that's correct.

And with the new study areas as described on the map, we can go around.

Supervisor McKeil, have any additional?

I'm still more interested in the ANSI mills.

Thank you.

Interjection.

Okay.

I don't think we should remove.

I think we should be studying both as that was there.

But I mean that was just a one which one goes first or second but that was what a month ago when I said that so I'm not

I mean, I think both should happen.

And let me just clarify, because I thought we were prioritizing which one first.

And that's what I was referring to.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

So I would have started with rather than, but I agree both.

So just to be clear, has expressed kind of a clear priority of which one should be one or two.

Yeah.

So is it a question to be considered now changing the map area because there's currently an idea of changing the map and the top one made me realize that if the white area below the blue in Yancey was taken out that would remove the critical resources from that section and make the study much more meaningful because it's steep slopes and watershed and there's no point in spending a lot of time

or Effort or Community Upset doing something where it's not going to be prone for this kind of use.

All the blue is the lumber yard and it is very actively in operation and certainly shows an example of the kind of commercial timber that is going on in

Albemarle for sure, and some surrounding counties as well.

So if we need to have a vote on those kinds of map questions, then that's fine.

Okay.

And this is a study.

This is a study.