Board of Supervisors Regular First Meeting   4/2/2025

Good afternoon.

I'm pleased to call to order this regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on the 2nd of April at 1 p.m.

in Leon Auditorium.

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

I'm Jim Andrews representing the Samuel Miller District.

A quorum is present.

Also, we're joined by our County Executive, Mr. Jeff Richardson, our County Attorney, Mr. Andy Herrick, our Clerk, Ms.

Claudette Borgeson, and the Senior Deputy Clerk, Mr. Travis Morris.

Also, let me please welcome Albemarle County Police Officers present, Master Police Officer Eric Ketchum and Officer Lester Clark.

Board, our first item as always is adoption of the final agenda.

I'd like to note that we're adding item number 17, an emergency ordinance changing the polling place for the Branson's Precinct of the Rio Magisterial District to this evening's agenda.

Also now item 18, now item 18 on the agricultural forestal districts, there was a revision in the publication, since publication to reflect the additional by right withdrawal requests received after it was posted.

And other than those two changes, there are no other changes to the final agenda.

So moved as amended.

We have a motion from Supervisor McKeel, a second from Supervisor Mallek.

Ms.

Mallet?

Yes.

Ms.

Mr. Pruitt?

Aye.

Mr. Andrews?

Yes.

Mr. Galloway?

Yes.

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Thank you very much.

Happy April, everyone.

Today, at noon, the reconvene session for the General Assembly began.

And hopefully, we will learn more by the end of tonight how many outstanding bills and override choices end up.

From the Shenandoah National Park,

There is a new website where one can find out what's going on up there regarding all of the staff freezes, cuts, funding, trail closures, et cetera, snptrust.org, and find a link there.

And I am very much looking forward to the April 9th budget town hall held at West Brownwell High School beginning at 5.30, and also the one the next day on the 10th at North Fork

Research Park, which is not in the White Hall district, but many of the White Hall residents will probably go there because it's lots closer, also beginning at 5.30.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you very much.

I did attend the second day of the Police Citizens Academy and enjoyed it very much.

I'm doing it one per year, one day per year, because I can't get to all three.

but it's very good if anyone has a chance to do that.

Also attended the, this is Child Prevention Month, a week, and we put out pinwheels at 5th Street Station just to make people aware.

Child abuse is a real thing and we need to make sure that we're all vigilant and look for those things and if a child needs help that we make sure that we get them the help they need.

Lastly, I had a Key West in my area in Rivanna.

We had an assessment meeting.

People wanted to hear from the assessor, Peter Lynch, which he attended and explained to everyone how assessments are figured.

And we actually had a very good turnout.

It was 35 to 40 people.

So I was very pleased with that.

Not that everyone's happy about their assessments, but at least they understand the process.

Thank you.

Supervisor Galloway.

I have no announcements, thank you.

Yes, I wanted to first thank everyone who has come out to our town halls.

We still have, I believe, three more on the docket, but I have finished my third and final, so thank you for everyone who came out to those.

I would like to make sure everyone just has on their own mental calendar

For all the folks joining us online, that May 17th, there's going to be a joint meeting with the town of Scottsville that I'm excited and looking forward to.

And in that note, I'm going to mention a few things that are happening in the town of Scottsville.

As I addressed previously, there is a new gallery space owned by the Scottsville Center for Arts and Nature.

This is the former Riverbend Boutique.

It is now a nonprofit gallery space.

They have their debut show open currently that will be running, I believe, through the rest of the month.

It is a great opportunity to find an excuse to go down to Scottsville, see what they've got down there, and it is some surprisingly affordable art for those who are interested in filling out their home.

Additionally, SCAN is going to be in celebration of Earth Day, have some events that they're putting on in Scottsville, in some of their wild land that they have preserved, and that is going to be on the 19th of April.

Lastly, I would like to raise that in-person early voting is coming and is so much sooner than you expect.

So for our primary, which is likely to be dispositive,

in some of the elections here in the county board of supervisors level.

We have one contested primary and that is going to, it's important that we know this because early voting starts in one month.

The second of May is going to be the beginning of early voting in the primary elections for 2025.

There are also, as we've talked about before, as I've talked about before, quite a lot of contested

races at the state level.

These are all going to be really important, and they're all pretty hotly contested at the state level, so make sure to get out there.

And unfortunately, the elections website is down right now, so I can't get you more information about deadlines, but according to Fairfax, which has already posted their election information, early voting starts on the second.

Oh, and it has been brought to my attention that I misspoke.

I said May 17th is May 14th as the joint Scottsville meeting.

Thank you.

Sure.

Just to follow up with Bea's comment, I too attended the Albemarle County Police Department Citizens Police Academy.

Took it decades ago and just again recently and it really is a wonderful opportunity for citizens

to learn a lot about the police and what we do in the county and the operations of the police department, especially as they affect citizens.

I enjoyed it very much and hope that many of you can think about joining it next year.

We're hopeful that they'll be offering it again next year.

The other thing I wanted to just point out is April 14th is the

at Journey Middle School is the Jack Jouett budget town hall.

We are honored to be the very last public town hall, so we'll be wrapping all of them up.

So April 14th, 5.30 to 7.30 at Journey Middle School.

Come one, come all.

It's your last opportunity.

And the only other thing I wanted to point out was we now have copies of

The 2024 Annual Albemarle County Police Department Report, which is chock full of lots of information.

You can pick up a copy and take a look at it if you choose.

It's also available online.

So you can get a hard copy.

You can get it online.

And the Albemarle County Community Report has been released for 2024.

So both of these are really great informational documents for people to take a look at.

Thank you.

Yeah, I second that on the annual report from the police in particular.

It's a very thorough explanation of all the different things that our police department has done for us.

It's thick.

It's thick.

Thank you.

As always, I mentioned a little bit about spring bulky waste amnesty days and they're coming up in April and May.

Most importantly, the e-waste collection is April 19th from 9 to 3 at the Ivy

Recycling, Solid Waste and Recycling Center.

And I mention it because online registration is required, so it's something that people, if they want to do, they need to plan ahead.

Also, just in the realm of announcements we receive occasionally, I noted just the other day that we have an announcement that kindergarten registration opens on April 7th.

And I thought, wow.

but an important thing for people who have kids about to join kindergarten.

And that is it.

Our next item is Proclamations and Recognitions, and we have two.

If you're here for them, please stay for both.

Thank you very much.

As someone who lives far from the street lights, I really appreciate being able to read this recognition in the form of emotion.

Proclamation recognizing Dark Sky Week.

Whereas the aesthetic beauty and wonder of a natural night sky is a shared heritage of all humankind, the experience of standing beneath a starry night sky inspires feelings of wonder and awe.

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

excessive artificial lighting at night that disrupts natural darkness and may never experience the visual wonder or ecological and health benefits of living under a dark sky.

And whereas light pollution has scientifically established economic and environmental consequences, which result in significant impacts to the ecology and human health of all communities,

and Light Pollution represents a waste of natural resources amounting to roughly $3 billion per year of wasted energy in the United States and contributes to climate change.

and whereas Albemarle County has developed the biodiversity action plan to protect the many species which rely on undisturbed night environments to hunt, mate and thrive.

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

The southernmost edge of Albemarle County is less than 10 miles from the James River State Park, which is one of four Virginia State Parks designated as an International Dark Sky Park by the International Dark Sky Association.

and whereas peak spring bird migration falls during Dark Sky Week.

and 80% of migrating birds fly at night and need starlight to navigate.

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

Now therefore be it proclaimed that we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby recognize April 21st through 28th, 2025 as International Dark Sky Week and ask each resident to join us not only in observing and pondering upon this important week, but also raising awareness and support for protecting our precious dark sky resources.

Second.

We have a motion from Supervisor Malek, a second from Supervisor McKeel.

Ms.

Malek?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Mr. Pruitt?

Aye.

Mr. Andrews?

Yes.

Mr. Galloway?

Yes.

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Thank you, and I believe we have Christine Putnam here, Chair of our Natural Heritage Committee, here to accept along with many others.

Welcome.

Thank you so much for having us, and you can see

Behind me, these are all members of the Dark Skies Piedmont Group and we are all advocates for protecting the night sky.

So I just want to say on behalf of the Dark Sky Piedmont Group and as a member of the Natural Heritage Committee, I want to thank you for your support of Dark Skies and your help in raising awareness about the growing problem of light pollution.

All things on this planet evolved with a predictable cycle of day and night.

The rhythm of light and darkness is essential to our health and well-being.

With the advancement of inexpensive and efficient LED outdoor lighting, the darkness of the night is disappearing at an alarming rate.

Excessive light at night disrupts our sleep.

It confuses migrating birds and nocturnal predators with deadly consequences.

It also obscures our view of

of the stars and disconnects us from our place in the larger universe.

The good news is that with proper planning we can utilize LED technology to create community-friendly lighting that works with our circadian rhythms, saves energy and keeps us safe.

LEDs can last for more than a generation.

So we don't want to be stuck with lights that are too bright and a source of blinding glare.

This is why it's essential to get an outdoor lighting ordinance right with perhaps lumen per acre caps and dark sky compliant light fixtures.

We recommend that Albemarle County follow the lead of other Virginia municipalities such as the town of Vienna

in hiring a lighting consultant to provide guidance on creating an effective outdoor lighting ordinance because it's quite technical so that is our recommendation when we get to that point but thank you so much for being supportive and on behalf of

our entire group.

We're very pleased that you are taking the time to recognize how important this is.

Thank you.

I'm sure the Supervisor will have comment and she'll bring you the proclamation, but we will start with Supervisor Malek as soon as she gets back to her seat.

I should have waited until after comments, I'm sorry.

Way back in the 90s when my kids were small, the children from the city had to come out to our farm in order to do their astronomy homework during the spring fourth grade, watching the constellations and mapping them because they couldn't see in town.

And that was just 25 years ago, but we want to make sure that that's not

Going to be lost forever.

Seeing the Milky Way in your backyard is a pretty astonishing thing.

Sort of like seeing an eagle that makes the hair stand on the back of your neck.

Thank you.

Superintendent Pesto-Kirtley.

Oh, we're not done yet.

We'll be here another three hours on this.

Thank you very much for coming.

It is such an honor for us to present to you all the Dark Skies Initiative platform proclamation.

It is something very important not only in the urban area frankly in the rural areas because there are more and more developments and we really do want to protect the wildlife out there and I found out this past year through personal experience the bat population very very important for the bat population

and they eat up all those pesky mosquitoes so this is why it's so important to have dark skies because the lighting does interfere with bats at night and so let them do their thing encourage them to do their thing through low-level lighting or no lighting so this is just I'm very excited I'm glad we have this initiative frankly

and hopefully we can improve the ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you all for being here.

I do think in some ways, I grew up in an area that really did not have much light pollution.

So I understand the importance of what you can view and see and experience.

Then I lived in Cleveland.

Oh boy.

which I couldn't see a star.

But I have to say that having lived here and I live currently right in the development area I'm always quite surprised how when I am on my front yard just how much I can see.

I know it doesn't match with the folks out in your national woods but I'm always amazed by that so I know that there can be like as you've said the types of things that the technology allows

provide what we need to provide in the development area for safety, but then still allow, if not necessarily in your front yard, you don't have to go but so far to be able to enjoy what you can see for those that do live in the development area like I do.

But thank you all again for being here and obviously we'll be looking forward to your input if such an ordinance comes forward for us to consider.

Thank you.

I think I've shared with you, Christine, before that

You know, I've driven ships in the dead of night hundreds of miles from land in the middle of the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean and looking up the detail and the grandeur of the stars above you and the Milky Way and the precision with which you can see it like it's one of these

a calendar photo, right?

It's truly extraordinary and I grew up country and I would watch the stars and even then I couldn't see that kind of precision and it makes you realize kind of two things.

The first is that this is truly a resource that for most of the world has been lost.

This is an experience that we have to describe to people that only that we're getting to a point where maybe a few folks in

Nowhere, Arizona, like maybe on a reservation, and mariners are the only people who can describe this experience to people, which is bleak.

And the other thing is I can tell you the actual tangible navigational challenges that you get when you start to have light pollution.

There is the smallest thing when you are in the bridge of a ship at midnight,

will ruin your ability to perceive the horizon and to judge distances.

You have to close your eyes if you're going to go tease the toilet, for example, because you don't want to spoil your night vision.

It takes 30 minutes to adjust.

And when you are just 100 miles out from land,

you will begin to see that land and it will disrupt your view of the horizon and it will harm your ability to perceive relative distance on other landmarks.

And I'm just a simple human with my normal crappy 2020 eyes.

I can't fathom what that might do to

Nighttime predators, things that really do deeply rely on their eyes and that are designed to hunt during nighttime.

So it is very clear to me from my own experience that it is a serious threat to biodiversity from that angle.

So thank you for continuing, as you all will I'm sure every year, raise the importance and the salience of this issue.

Thank you.

Sure.

Thank you all for being here.

And first, before I make any more comments, Christine, would you like to introduce the folks or let them introduce themselves that are here?

And I do want to take a minute to recognize Sally Thomas, who is a former Albemarle County Supervisor of the Samuel Miller District, but now lives in the Jack Jouett District.

Thank you so much for being here.

Just for a couple of comments, I have been very lucky for the last 50 years.

The neighborhood that I live in, in the Jack Jouett district, has been over the years full of astronomers.

So we have beaten back several tries at streetlights.

And we do have a couple, but we have beaten back many of them.

And it is lovely because we can sit in our backyards and see the skies.

Unlike when we top pan tops, if you're driving pan tops, you really see the light pollution in that area, mostly from the University of Virginia.

I'm going to say that because that's what we see.

And where I'm going with that is, I would love for this community

the city and the county and the university to come together and look at a dark skies ordinance because if we do it, if only one of us works on it, it's not going to have the same effect as if all three localities work together.

So we do have a very old lighting ordinance.

and I know that all of us are anxious to get to an update for that ordinance.

I will just add though that in my neighborhood most of the light pollution really comes from the technology now of dusk to dawn lights.

and while I turn mine off every night before I go to bed or in the early evening, most people don't.

And that technology is very, while I know people feel like it makes them feel safer, it is very concerning when you're trying to have dark skies in your neighborhoods.

But with that, thank you very much.

We all agree with what you're asking for here and we hope to get to that ordinance before too long.

Thank you, and just to second that, we have on our agenda later this afternoon a look at the development chapter actions, and one of them, 1.5, is update the county's requirements, so we will be looking at this.

Not the requirements today, but at least the action as part of AC44.

I'll remind Supervisor Galloway, having lived there myself and grown up in the area, that there were a lot of clouds in Cleveland, which is one of the reasons why you don't see the night sky particularly well, but I very much appreciate this.

The only one up here, I've said this before, that actually taught astronomy and made my students get up at four in the morning just so they could get a chance at seeing a lot with the telescope that otherwise wouldn't be available to them at other times of the day.

So, again, I appreciate this.

We have a couple more?

I just wanted to say that maybe Cleveland has clouds, but Los Angeles does not.

And if you saw a star, you were really, really lucky.

Thank you for being here.

because aging eyes have an even harder time adjusting from light to dark.

So when you go to a sheets filling station and the bright light there and then you drive out onto the highway, you are a danger to yourself and everyone else because those eyes take a long time to adjust and you in your sign ordinances and lighting have total control.

over that in a way that most of this light pollution you might not have control over.

So, couldn't resist.

Yes, and I will read this in the form of a motion.

Proclamation Recognizing Financial Literacy Awareness Month.

Whereas, financial literacy is essential to the economic health and well-being of individuals, families, and communities

empowering people to make informed decisions about budgeting, saving, investing and managing debt.

And whereas promoting financial literacy equips individuals with the knowledge and skills necessary to achieve financial security, build generational wealth and prepare for unforeseen financial challenges.

And whereas

April is recognized nationwide as Financial Literacy Awareness Month, providing an opportunity to raise awareness, foster education, and encourage conversations about personal finance and economic empowerment.

And whereas businesses, schools, community organizations, and government entities

in Albemarle County are actively engaged in providing programs and initiatives that foster financial education for residents of all ages, helping to address issues of economic disparity, promote responsible financial decision making, and enhance overall community stability.

And whereas Albemarle County recognizes the importance of financial literacy in supporting local economic growth, home ownership, and small business success,

ensuring that all residents have tools to thrive financially and contribute to the well-being of the county.

Now, therefore, be it proclaimed that we, the Almar County Board of Supervisors, do proclaim April 2025 as Financial Literacy Awareness Month and encourage all residents to engage in financial education opportunities, take steps toward improving their financial literacy, and support initiatives that

promote financial empowerment in our community.

Signed this second day of April, 2025, Jim Andrews, Chair.

Is there a second?

We have a motion from Supervisor McKeel, a second from Supervisor Mallek.

Ms.

Mallek?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Mr. Pruitt?

Aye.

Mr. Andrews?

Yes.

Mr. Galloway?

Yes.

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Thank you, and I believe we have Miss Janasha Bradford here, the founder and CEO of Mahogany and Friends, to accept the proclamation.

Welcome.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you for having me.

So we can hear you.

OK.

Can you hear me?

Do I do my speech now, or do I get the award?

Go ahead.

OK.

Well, my name is Janeshia Bradford.

I go by Jay.

Thank you so much for this incredible honor.

It truly means a lot to be recognized by Albemarle County during financial literacy month.

On behalf of mahogany and friends, I just want to say how grateful we are not just for the award, but for the love and support we felt from

the entire community.

Mahogany and Friends started as a passion project, a way to make financial literacy fun, creative, and culturally relatable for our youth.

We believe that if you teach kids about money early, you're not just teaching them how to save or spend, you're teaching them how to build confidence, make smart decisions, and shape the life they want to live.

Over the years, we've had the chance to bring those lessons to life through stories, characters, curriculums, and community events.

We've seen how powerful it is when kids start to see themselves as financially capable.

At the end of this month, during Financial Literacy Month, our nonprofit Mahogany and Friends Foundation is hosting our Budget Does It workshop.

And thanks to the support of our amazing sponsors, we're reaching 305 kids across the Boys and Girls Club location in Albemarle, Cherry Avenue, and Southwood.

This workshop is all about giving kids a fun, hands-on way

to learn how to budget, save, and make smart choices with their money.

We couldn't do this without our village.

A heartfelt thank you to our sponsors, Custom, Inc., C&F Bank, S&P Global, the City of Charlottesville Office of Social Equity, Albemarle County Office of Equity and Inclusion,

Shenanigans, and all of our other community members and local businesses who are helping make this possible.

You're part of something meaningful and your impact will be felt for years to come.

Thank you again for the recognition.

Thank you very much.

Thank you and congratulations.

Your approach sounds wonderful because there's joy and success and accomplishment all combined in one very challenging topic.

Yes, thank you.

I was of the generation of do your chores first and then maybe there'll be some allowance.

And maybe if you're lucky and you've worked really hard you might get to buy yourself a pop at Hunt Country Store, which used to be called Grover's Store when I was little, you know, when you were out in the summertime.

So those kinds of

Work for the gratification rather than just expecting everything immediately is a really good lesson for kids.

Kids of all ages, that's for sure.

So thank you for all that you're doing.

I appreciate it.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley?

Yes, thank you very much, Jay.

That was actually inspiring.

And I'm glad you all are doing what you're doing.

Financial literacy is extremely important.

for everyone, but especially for our youth so that they in these trying times.

So what you're doing is very good work and continue getting all those donations so you can help more and more children.

Yeah, likewise for everything that you are doing to help educate.

I love that you used the phrase making kids feel like they're financially capable.

That there's a certain level of

confidence, both psychologically and emotionally, that comes with that.

That if you find yourself in the reverse situation, especially when one bad financial decision could live with you for 5, 10, 15 years, if not longer, and then the result of putting the social-emotional stress on you of having to deal with that situation.

So the more that we can educate and help folks understand decisions, especially when you're young, how they can come back and haunt you later,

is a good thing.

So really, really respect the fact that you all are taking that on and doing that kind of work with the kids.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi.

Thank you so much for being here first.

I personally really love aphorisms, right?

Like short little statements that are deceptively profound.

You know,

I'm affiliated with the United States Navy, with AA, and with the Christian faith, all of which love aphorisms, right?

And one aphorism that I do like that I also deeply disagree with, that we hear a lot, is that the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house, right?

And I look at that, and I'm like, you know, actually, I think I will need a chisel and some hammers, which are probably part of the master's tools, to dismantle the master's house.

This is apropos, right?

Because it's not lost on us that you are a black woman who is serving communities, boys and girls club, that are often poor, that are often disproportionately folks of color.

And these are folks who have often a worse shot

I think

then what that lets us do is believe that it's not worth investing in financial literacy in young people, in marginalized communities, and folks who don't have that access.

And I think that has to be really essential.

So thank you so much for the work that your organization does and for the work of, frankly, the folks that sponsored you believing in this kind of work because I think this has to be a really critical part of how we dismantle the master's house.

Thank you.

Supervisor McKeel.

Yes.

Thank you, Jay, for being here.

And thank you for all the work that you all do, especially with our young people.

It's really wonderful.

We do have some organizations that work really hard with financial literacy for our older population as well.

I know Java does some work, and I think the Center, and even Habitat, which is great to cover the whole range of ages.

And I will say, I've been around long enough.

When I first saw this proclamation, it took me back to the days, decades ago, when I was on the school board and the UVA credit union had a branch office at Albemarle High School.

and there was talk about moving one, opening one at Western Albemarle.

And it was such a great experience for the students because the credit union folks would let the students take rotations through to learn a little bit about banking and it was just a really innovative, I thought, idea, something to think about.

Bring back from the old, right?

I never knew about that, but that's something I'm definitely going to think about.

And I'm not sure what, maybe funding, I don't know what happened to it.

But it really worked well to the point where we were talking about expanding it.

Anyway, something to think about.

But thank you so much for being here.

And I just want to second the comments made by the other supervisors and appreciate particularly the fact that this is a lifelong learning process but needs to be started at a very young age and I'm glad you're getting them started on the right foot.

Thank you.

Thank you, guys.

While Diantha's walking over, your comments reminded me, in elementary school, one of the best student jobs was to be able to work the supply closet before school, which is where people could go and buy pencils and things like that for a nickel, two pencils for a nickel.

And that was all that part of skills and making sure that the till was balanced at the end of your half hour shift and that kind of thing.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Board, this brings us to item seven, which is public comment on matters previously considered or currently pending before the board other than scheduled for public hearings.

Yep.

Just let me pull the rules out here.

So we have no one online.

and two people in person.

So during the time set aside for public comment on matters previously considered or currently pending before the board, individuals may address the board of supervisors.

I'm sorry, lost my place.

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 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 in 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 Albemarle County, your magisterial district.

Address comments directly to the board as a whole.

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

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

Speakers may not share any unused time with another speaker.

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

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

Welcome.

Thank you.

My name is Gary Grant.

I live on the Bleak House Road in the Rio district.

On March 19th, two of your board members stopped me in the aisle of this auditorium and challenged my suggestion that work sessions should be held in this auditorium instead of in room 241.

The sound volume from room 241 for the public to hear the public's business is so low as to be close to violating public meeting law.

How ironic then that today this board will hold not one but two work sessions right here in this auditorium where I suggested all of your work sessions should be held.

The argument made to me on March 19th by Supervisors Andrews and McKeel was that room 241 lets the six of you see each other better during the work sessions.

Nothing was said about how well the public can hear you from Room 241.

Also in relation to one of your work sessions right here this afternoon, let me remind you to look again, or maybe for the first time, to my email to you of March 5th.

It has relevance for your work session today about rural rustic roads.

This board, through your staff in the Community Development Department, put Bleak House Road area residents through a month of hell starting February 16th because of your terrible process for approving or defeating paving projects.

Luckily, because 14 families worked together to defeat an unwanted paving project on the Rio and White Hall boundary, we kept our peaceful gravel road from becoming a paved racetrack.

By the way,

We saved taxpayers $543,000 by not letting Albemarle County government and VDOT pave over us.

Thank you, Gary.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Neil Williamson.

I serve as the president of the Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization focused on central Virginia's local governments.

Yesterday was April Fool's Day.

For a hot minute, I considered a blog post.

Albemarle County announcing a public-private pickleball partnership to convert your recently acquired 172-acre Rivanna Futures acquisition into a corporately sponsored Vlasic pickleball sports complex.

I even came up with a name for their national championship, which would drive lots of tourists to Albemarle County.

The Vlasic Classic.

As my uncle Charlie would say, that would be a big deal.

But after a little bit of consideration, I thought better of posting that.

Who would believe that Albemarle County would squander away 100 acres of limited, valuable real estate within their highly restrictive development area for recreation?

Oh, wait a minute.

This already happened.

Eightfold.

Today, thanks to actions by the Commonwealth during the Tim Kaine administration, Biscuit Run is a 1,190 acre park in the heart of Albemarle's development area.

This is just one of many governmental actions that have reduced the land mass of your development areas.

Today, by adjusting your Nixonian era development area boundaries, you can fix this planning pariah.

Regardless of your position on the value of Biscuit Run Park in the development area, nothing in Biscuit Run follows the long touted neighborhood model, philosophy of dense development, interconnected streets, rich amenities, and pocket parks.

Our vision is for Albemarle to continue to densify at its core.

To accomplish this, we must also increase height allowances.

Together with development expansion, significant bi-right height adjustments

in the core will generate taller land-efficient development.

Development is like electricity.

It follows the path of least resistance.

The Free Enterprise Forum believes the board should be bold.

We believe expanding the development area from less than 5% to 7% is the right number.

We ask for you to step forward today.

Thank you, Neil.

Board, our next item is the consent agenda.

Second.

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

Ms.

Mallet?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Mr. Pruitt?

Aye.

Mr. Andrews?

Yes.

Mr. Galloway?

Yes.

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to acknowledge that I want to thank the electoral board because on the consent agenda is the piece of branch land, so I know it will be coming up later.

But is there both in attendance?

I just want to thank them for the work of finding a new location for the Branchlands voters in the Rio district.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for being here.

So, board, our next item is the work session on AC44 development areas, land use, chapter revisions, and community design guidelines.

Thank you, give me a moment to bring up the presentation

Good afternoon.

I'm Tanya Schwarzenegger.

We're planning manager for the Community Development Department.

Here to talk about AC44, our comprehensive plan, specifically about the revisions that we made to the development area's land use chapter, as well as to look at the community design guidelines.

So we'll go through some of those revisions.

We'll talk about the design guidelines and hear your feedback and also go through the upcoming schedule.

Today we really only have the one question.

Do the revisions and additions to the document meet your expectations for both of those pieces of the document?

Just as a reminder, our development area's goal is to have a thriving and viable mixed-use community through redevelopment, infill, and adaptive reuse with a variety of house types and multimodal transportation connections that includes tree coverage and protected natural features.

We've talked about in previous sessions the land use tools and two out of these three.

The first being the activity centers that overlays our land use designations and will more than likely or will recommend more mixed use and higher density than the underlying land use designation.

And we've talked about land use designations, which is really the recommended future land use.

So today we're here to consider the community design guidelines, which is really what that development looks like.

It goes to transportation, street design, building design, and site layout, as you have reviewed in your packet.

Just to go over a few of the kind of a summary of changes that we made to the development areas land use chapter.

We added the major findings and trends just like we have for all the other chapters.

We've updated the FLM or the Future Land Use Map.

We've separated those publicly accessible parks and open space from private open space.

We've also included a connection between the multi-modal strategic plan and incorporated that into the activity, ideas of the activity centers.

We went ahead and added a section regarding nature per your direction.

And then we also updated a few of the actions for this chapter as a result of direct feedback from both the PC and yourselves.

I'm happy to show on this slide right here all of the remaining chapters that we'll be discussing over the next few months.

So today we're here to talk about the revisions of the development area's land use chapter and the guidelines, but we'll be speaking very soon to you

on April 16th about the thriving economy and community facilities and infrastructure chapters.

We'll be taking both of those together at the meeting of the 16th.

And then you can see in that green box when we'll be coming to NPC for housing, transportation, and then we'll be taking cultural resources and the community resilient chapters together for our last meeting June 4th.

Thank you.

We have a fair amount of time for this, so I don't want to take everything all at once.

It might be best to try to take it in chunks, if that's all right.

I certainly would separate out development areas, land use, and the community's design guidelines as we go through our order.

With respect to the former, of course, there are many pages leading up to the actual list of objectives and actions.

I'll look to the board for a consensus here.

I'd be sensible.

Then come back to the objectives and actions.

So we'll start with the paragraphs, the narrative, and then specifically look at the objectives and actions.

So I will start going through the order.

Again, we're looking at the development areas, land use narrative.

Thank you.

So I'll just have a couple of comments by pages.

They've already been made before, but did not make it to the next level.

So I just want to raise them again because otherwise, I mean, I think they're important.

On page four, the Rutgers paragraph throws in an end completely conjectural that if you have

No reduced parking requirements, rents are going to go down.

Oh, sorry.

So I'm just raising that again because I don't think it's appropriate.

I would like to know where, page 11, Middle Residential, where do we talk about smaller lot sizes to make Missing Middle actually work?

Because I'm glad to see in the CCE about the

co-housing now Chris Fuller's coming back again but he's 15 years ago tried to bring something to Crozet that would have been spectacular but the lots, minimum lots were too big and so it would not work.

So that's important I think to get something in there.

Just in general, I think we should be having photographs of Albemarle County.

I don't think it's appropriate to have pictures of the Navy Yard in our comprehensive plan.

I've been there.

I know where it is.

So I just make that publicly again.

And I really appreciate on page 37 about bringing more nature into things.

And so we had talked earlier about having

Less restriction and requiring a paved top lot in every circumstance when an alternative might be more appreciated by the residents.

And some resident conversation is also something that would be helpful.

And I guess that's all for now.

Thank you.

We are doing the entire narrative of the development area chapter, not the community design guidelines and not the objectives and actions.

OK, so if there's not a concern with the narrative, I don't have a concern with the narrative.

I'm OK with the narrative.

I do have questions regarding future land use interpretation policy.

I know that's page 26.

And I thought that that was a really, really good one.

But I don't know if that, it said taller buildings, which goes to my point that I brought up before about allowing taller buildings.

So we're just using on page 24 where it says future land use interpretation policy.

Am I off track here?

No, please go ahead.

Then it said cluster development, protection, sensitive environmental features, et cetera, et cetera.

Taller buildings, but it doesn't give a height limit.

Is that assuming that we can go beyond our current

level of four or five stories?

Can we go up eight, nine stories in certain areas where it would benefit to be taller with amenities?

No, it would not necessarily negate it.

But it does say, okay,

Paragraph 3, it does say taller buildings can provide additional density while reducing the area of land impacted by development.

In other words, so you have something like, let's say, a fashion square, an Albemarle square, or some of these other places that are void of commercial.

They could have commercial plus tall buildings with amenities.

I've actually seen it in Reston.

where they have spaces for people to gather, they have a swimming pool, et cetera, et cetera, all in these taller buildings.

But it seems like before we were saying, no, you can only go up to four or five stories.

But in the appropriate places, and I emphasize appropriate places, going eight, nine, 10 stories, should a developer want to do that, I feel is something very

important plus it's close to transit water sewer things like that this would be in the development area.

I agree with that, but you have to give the opportunity.

Otherwise, if you don't have that opportunity, if you don't say taller buildings, which this does, and I'm clarifying the interpretation of that, when they say taller buildings, we're not putting a building height limit.

There's no number there.

Pardon?

All right.

Good.

I think that was my big concern.

No, regional center.

And I think it's reinforced in the regional center on page 33 that says building height at least three and up to eight stories.

Would it be limited to eight stories?

Because I'm hearing from developers that it could be the point, the good point for them is eight, nine, and ten.

So can that eight stories be changed to ten stories?

Or just up to whatever someone is willing to build?

I suppose it could if it was the will of the board.

I'm trying to get denser in the development area.

That's my whole purpose in certain areas, in areas where it would be feasible to have, or at least give developers the opportunity that they know that they can come in, which also assists economic development, where they know they can come into an area and build a tall building, have commercial in there instead of cottages or single family homes or even town homes.

Mr. Chair, do we have a map of regional centers?

Because I'm drawing a blank on which ones those are.

Because it makes a difference if it's a center more remote, then the higher might be defined.

But if it's not right in the core, then I would not support going higher.

I remember that they're quite limited, right?

They are limited.

We're not talking about just anywhere, but they are limited.

Like two per district.

For your reference, the activity centers are, the map that we've seen before is on page 30.

Okay, and that would include the regional centers, right?

Yes, ma'am.

I saw that map.

That would include everything that I think would be feasible, you know, should a developer want to come in and do something like that.

I mean, let's face it, folks, we have to think of something different, otherwise we are going to be going out into the rural areas and expanding that.

Okay, so that's it for now.

Thank you.

I mean, I think for the most part with the writing and the draft and everything that's in there, I'm ready to call it a good draft that we take out and start to get feedback on.

I don't really have a whole lot here to add.

Most of my comments will be when we get to the action items and the objectives.

I've got some stuff there.

But to speak to just the conversation that's coming up, I mean, what's the tallest I see in their eight stories?

I mean, if you go much higher, it kind of changes.

I don't know if our market support's going higher than that.

I certainly think if somebody thought they could, and it could be possible, I'd want to hear from them.

But there's no shut doors here.

And I know that the small area plan for Rio 29 already addresses height in a different manner than this, and that's an optional overlay.

Regional center is the largest.

So there may be other regional centers that have to have their own small area plan and optional overlay developed for them that can address the height for that optional overlay in similar fashion that the Rio 29 one does.

I mean, when it comes to getting the units and especially if affordability is involved, I mean, I just think it's an option that's on the table.

I don't feel like anything in here the way it's worded prevents us from doing it.

And then I'll just speak to the, I don't mind the Rutgers study being in there.

It's support for the opening statement that the other, all three bullets address.

You might want to just include others than just one study.

You might have a list of things, because that's a general, that's an understanding.

My last sentence is all I was complaining about is that there's an automatic connection between fewer parking spaces and lower rents.

But it's not.

It can.

That's different.

Not will.

It's a factual statement in my opinion.

Allowing reduced rents as compared to more typical over-parked residential developments means that's what the study says.

If you're going to list studies, I'm just weary of listing one.

This particular subject area, multiple studies have said yes, if you reduce the parking requirements, that it does go to allowing reduced rents.

So that's something you could find a lot more information on.

So I think if you're going to cite sources, it shouldn't just pick one source out there, because it leaves yourself open for things.

If you have multiple sources that you can cite, well, then that's a different animal.

But at the end of the day, and I'll

OK, thank you.

Thank you.

I want to first, just for the public who doesn't have the things in front of us, there are five regional centers, which are Hollymeade Town Center, a very large section of the Rio 29 area,

The intersection of Hydraulican 29, part of the northern end of lower Pantops, and a little bit of 5th Street between the county offices and 5th Street Station seems to be the area.

So those are the regional centers that are under discussion.

I want to first just kind of

Describe what my understanding of even the narrative section of the comprehensive plan is And see if that is consistent with what staff sees because I think that informs how we think about and talk about it I see this as being Because most of this is dedicated to talking about different types of planning districts and what

that implies.

And I see this, because it is not a zoning code, I see this as a descriptive statement about a future vision.

It is saying, let me pull one and I'll give you an example of what I mean.

Building form of neighborhood mixed use.

Buildings are generally one to three stories.

Building footprints for non-residential are typically less than.

That is not saying that's what the zoning code would describe.

It's saying we might expect that if we are doing everything we're saying, this is about what the median building will look like.

This is what will be accomplished.

So if I'm correct in understanding that, I'm looking to you for a conversation.

You are, yes.

It is not a normative.

Correct.

In that case, I am, I think, quite comfortable with the bulk of this and have very little to change.

The main thing I would, I actually want to pick up something.

that Supervisor Mallek touched on earlier, and that is about photos.

I'm thinking about, again, what is the purpose of the narrative section.

I think of the narrative section as being the easy to engage as a new member of the county or a new person caring about county governance.

It helps you think through it.

It helps me think, oh, what is this?

It helps me get inspired about what I might care about, what I might want to get involved in.

Humans are simple animals at the end of the day.

We like pictures.

I think it is probably helpful to connect the pictures more directly to what we're trying to accomplish with them.

I don't necessarily have an issue with Navy Yard having a photo in there if it's something that we can't show in the county.

And some of these things, I think there probably aren't good examples, or there's maybe only one good example of them, frankly.

And so that is fine.

I wonder, and I realize this is a staff ask, I wonder if it might be prudent to have captions on any of these.

Because I'm embarrassed, but I've not lived in the county as long as some of my peers.

Some of these, I'm like, what the hell is that?

And it might not be in the county, and I don't know.

and I think that informs how I might look at this and think about what I'm supposed to be getting out of it.

Oh, this is working in this neighborhood.

I can connect this now.

And I wonder if that might increase the utility for kind of the target demo for this.

And I do believe, actually, that's all I had on this.

I will have more juice when we actually get into it.

Well,

I've been skeptical of the way in which we plan to utilize the crosswalk and the CACs as a primary kind of vector of zoning decision making as we move forward and how it's going to pay into the flume.

I understand that as being something I would tackle in the action items, but if that is incorrect and should be attacked here, help me out here.

I don't remember if there's a specific action item that touches on this.

I think so.

So in a general sense, I know from a previous meeting of the board and kind of what was voiced there when we last looked at this, we

I believe one of the questions we specifically received was about the idea of cross-walking, basically not having a unified discussion on the future land use map, what is zoned as what, and instead relegating that to the CAC level and the master planning process.

And the master plans would then be incorporated into the comprehensive plan and would directly inform the flu.

My understanding is that is what we agreed on.

with the board when we said yes to a crosswalk and that is what this document currently reflects.

I'm seeing you nodding.

I continue to be uncomfortable with that and I would reflect that back to the board.

The land use map is one of the most important legislative decisions that we make as a board on land use.

and something I've expressed continued kind of frustration is that it feels like our own comprehensive plan is out of step with what we're saying with what the zoning code says and it seems like this is a way to replicate that process moving forward and I also am concerned that it does not elevate this as an issue politically for public consumption and feedback in a way that we would want in that it potentially puts it out of

It puts it out of the hands of people who do not already live in those neighborhoods, right?

Fifth and Avon is going to review and develop the master plan for Fifth and Avon, which would incorporate less of the views from outside of Fifth and Avon.

I bring this up because it's my CAC, right?

I don't know that that is the healthiest or most effective way to do planning for a county as large as ours, that is serving as many citizens as ours.

If it is still the board's intent that we rely on a crosswalk, I would suggest that we need a strong subsequent legislative process from the board.

And I would still oppose it, right?

But if we do insist on going through individual CACs developing their own respective land use policies, which I am opposed to, but if we do that, we need to have a legislative oversight of that that is extensive.

And maybe I'm misunderstanding the process, but my understanding is currently it is developed by the CACs and we adopt it.

And it becomes incorporated in its land use policies.

If we're going to do that, it needs to be a very serious, on the scale of what we have done here, review of those policies.

Because I would be concerned about, frankly, the community writing its own rules for itself in a way that might not serve the entire county.

We have Ms.

Thank you, Chair Andrews, Jody Filardo, Community Development Director, and thank you for the opportunity, Supervisor Pruitt.

With the zoning ordinance, we are going to be bringing all of the zoning ordinance section by section to both the Planning Commission and the Board

in public hearing.

And depending on how this thing rolls out, likely in work sessions prior to public hearing.

So we're not planning on utilizing the CACs as an evaluative tool, if you will.

We're always happy to go to the CACs to share what we're thinking and to get feedback.

But clearly, this will be a PCN board

I hope that allays some of your fear.

My understanding has been that that is frankly coming from bottom up from my CACs based on the current map and then reevaluated.

There are a couple different ways that you can change the future land use map.

What we've done for the future land use map before you today is we have consolidated the small area plan future land use maps and so having small area plans considered and evaluated and brought forward from your constituents in that particular area would be one way.

However, if you as a supervisor would like to consider

A change in land use for specific parcels in your district, you are welcome to bring that forward to the board directly.

So there are at least two ways that that normally would happen.

Today, because the future land use map is part of this work session, I had reached out to the board prior to this meeting and said, if you all know of specific parcels that you would like us to reconsider for a different land use designation,

bringing it forward at this work session today and then forward through the public process in public hearing both at the PC and the board.

You're welcome to do that as well.

So we kind of offered up a slight modification on that because I know folks talk to each of you as they do to us as well saying, golly, I really would be

like some support in doing something different with this particular parcel.

It does.

I want to also just make sure, because our zoning change is going to be subsequent to this.

Yes.

I guess something I'm concerned about is us falling into the current pattern we have, which is that our comprehensive plan and our land use map are discordant.

I hope that turn of phrase doesn't, but you know what I mean.

We are always briefed, every zoning map amendment that comes before us, about the disparity between our comprehensive plan, which incorporates the master plan, and the actual planning district that it is in.

Our hope is that the future land use map that we're working on now will inform the zoning district zoning map that will come before you.

That's our intention.

So we are intending to couple those things together.

We start with a comprehensive plan when we're doing an evaluation of a rezoning and so should the zoning map be requesting a rezoning to something that does not work or fit within the future land use land designation for that parcel.

We have in the past come before you with both a comprehensive plan amendment and a rezoning

where you have to marry those two things back together.

My understanding is we have not done that.

We have done that.

OK.

My misunderstanding.

I apologize.

OK.

Sorry, I'm still thinking through this.

I apologize for staring wistfully off into the distance.

I guess the

The concern I'm reflecting is something I hear from my CACs is that they have not

They have not revisited their own master plans in some time.

Some of them think that their master plans are out of date.

We have incorporated their inputs to create our current future land use map that we have before us.

And we have had the opportunity to give individual feedback.

That was not lost on me.

It didn't slip by.

I just, frankly, don't know enough about my individual parcels to be able to feel like I can give coherent pushback on this.

Fifth and Avon, I believe 2015 is when their class master plan was.

Maybe earlier.

And they're interested in revisiting it.

But we're about to incorporate into the comprehensive plan there.

current work

feedback and discussion

meetings that went past midnight.

They looked at individual parcels.

People on the Planning Commission, people on the City Council reviewed it in several rounds.

And there was a lot of public consternation and thought that went into it.

There was a lot of folks from LAJC who did some organizing around it.

And we are about to adopt something with the same level of bindingness this board is.

And I don't feel like there's been this kind of public engagement.

And maybe I'm out of step here, but I guess I reflect this to the board.

I'm not sure that we've had this level of thought on this specific issue.

And it does give me cause to worry.

And I don't mean to grudge any of community development's process on this.

I think y'all are doing what you've been told to do.

I think my views are different than yours simply because our small area plan process involves much public engagement and mind you

Yours is a bit long in the tooth, I understand that.

The process for revisiting all of that is another process that will follow behind this.

And so I think we've got a bit of, we've got a timing issue here, but we do have the process that you need to be able to make modifications should your community come to you and say, we want something different in this area.

We've got tools in place that we can use to get you there from here.

Just final comment during your time.

This feels like a yell at your supervisor moment.

I would have expected a lot of feedback from my constituents about the land use map.

I have had no one reach out to me about particularities of the land use map.

And I realize this is a weird way to reflect.

But my concern is we are in the decision-making posture on it today.

Just to say right now, regarding, I'm comfortable with where we are right now.

Sorry, I wasn't comfortable with where the mic was.

Do you want to add anything else at all Jody?

I think the only thing I wanted to add was just to reiterate, today we're in a work session, but you all are not making a decision today.

The adoption will not be until right now, October 15th is adoption day.

So we've got a little bit of time yet.

Just sharing that, so maybe that will make you feel more comfortable with the process for today.

At least I hope so.

In general, I have no real argument or changes that I'm requesting here.

I would like, just for my own self, to help me understand.

On page four, and we have the narrative about sufficient land available to accommodate 20 years of estimated growth

Help me with those comments and I guess what I'm looking at is the estimated growth in the land available because we went through 15 years maybe of solid one and a half to two percent growth.

All of a sudden we have jumped now to about five percent to six percent recently.

Not a decade, but recently.

So I guess I just want to help me understand

When we're looking at that data, what are we looking at in the way of growth?

Are we looking at the one and a half to two percent or the five to six percent?

Are we splitting it down?

How did you come up with the... I don't understand.

Maybe it's just me.

Maybe I'm confused.

Help me, Jody.

It's a Weldon Cooper Center.

Yes, so that's what you use, right?

But how recent is this?

Flann, Jody Filardo, Development Director again.

We were basing these figures on the capacity study that we did in 2022.

We are in the throes of signing final contracts for an amendment to those numbers.

So there's more to come on that, and we are hopeful

that we will get the updated numbers for you.

You have answered my question because in my gut, I just keep thinking to myself, this is not matching with what I'm hearing from Weldon Cooper and some of our other.

So thank you.

You're welcome.

So more to come.

OK, I appreciate that.

And the only other thing I have is,

I understand Ann's concern about Rutgers identifying the one, but I'm like, Ned, all the studies that I've ever seen show that.

How much trouble we want to go to to listing all kinds of studies, but certainly multiple studies have found

If you want to play with the language a little bit about more than just that particular one.

But certainly I agree with the point you're making here that that is certainly, in my estimation, an accurate statement.

I just get into what we were discussing earlier.

And that's really all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have a number of different questions that are mostly just trying to make sure the document is as clear as it can be, I hope.

I know there were some comments that we received from the public about color schemes.

And the flume has a color scheme.

And then the regional centers, or the centers map has a color scheme.

But then on pages 7, 31, 32, 33, there are other little inset diagrams with multiple colors.

And if those are

You know not following any key anywhere else in the document It should be made clear that these are not intended to follow that key because I think that was confusing to someone at least And I hope that that can be fixed Let's see the

There are those two maps, the activity centers map versus the future land use map, and I want to make sure that as much as possible those are consistent with each other and also the description, so I've heard a lot of discussion about the number of stories and of course if we look at the future land use map,

There are a number of stuff up to five stories, six stories, four stories, but then we get to the regional centers and it says up to eight stories, but it doesn't say how that fits with the other map.

So I got myself just a little bit confused as to why one map has one set of stories associated with it based on what the activity is, and the other map has a different set.

And so I thought that maybe could use a little bit of tweaking.

If you will.

I agree with the comment about captions on photos.

I think that that would be very helpful to the extent that the photos are purposeful and they're intended to illustrate something, at least a caption letting us know where it is would help, and maybe even what it's illustrating.

Let's see.

I want to make sure that we're being consistent on our use of secondary uses.

And where this jumped out at me in particular is when we get to the urban.

Land Use, which, let's see, Urban Residential, page 14.

Suddenly, we have secondary land uses, single-family detached housing.

And of course, I know one of the efforts here is to try to densify, but when we see single-family detached housing as a secondary use, my question, I guess, is,

Do we need to list this as a secondary use?

What does it mean to say that you can have a single family home in the urban residential area?

Are there by right expectations built into this document?

I noticed that in other areas, let's see, middle residential also had secondary, single family, but then others did not, so I wasn't sure whether we were consistent, whether this is what we intended.

So neighborhood residential specifically says single family detached and detached.

So that's consistent.

Just something I think needs to maybe be looked at.

I'm just worried that we may have inadvertently thrown things in here that we really don't want to have, for example, urban residential.

Not that they don't exist.

Let's see.

I just raised the point that as I looked at the different step back expectations that in my experience on the board we've had a number of special exceptions involving step backs.

and they almost seem automatic and I want to make sure that we are intentional to try to streamline things so that if there are standards that can be put in that would make it so that we didn't need to review those.

That would be helpful if they're something that we expect that we're not going to need.

to deny.

I mean, if there are some trigger where we know, well, these are the ones we really want to look at.

I'm not trying to say that they're not important.

I'm just noticing that we almost always just get them and say yes.

And those are my comments.

I do think that the small area plan process involves a lot of public engagement, needs to, but the CACs are sort of the most intimately familiar with the geography of that area as it exists.

That doesn't mean that they should be

Yes, so my question is this the time for me to bring up the I did respond about from Ms.

It's up to the board.

If we're in the flume stuff.

OK, so I had circulated an email to all of you in response to the question.

And this is the area, if you can picture Miller School Road, Crozet Avenue, come together at the light with 250 going.

And just west is Brownsville on the north and Moise on the south.

and this very small lot was left out of the reorganization back in 2008 when the area to the east was rezoned into what was going to be at the time a mixed-use large office and residential thing and then

It got wiped out by the recession and sat empty for many, many years and now has a very large self-storage building going on there.

But the residential lot is really, really difficult now and the landowner had discussed back in 2010 making it commercial and so that is my response to Jody's question is that would be the

Only one that I have that could be changed to commercial in the future land use map at the comp plan level and then could come back for a rezoning when the landowner was ready.

And I also put some feedback on that, just one area and that is what is called the Sieg property which is the corner of 29 and 64 currently has no real accessibility to any other area except for by car getting in and out of

29, which is already a four-lane road, 64 is inaccessible except by the interchange.

And that was proposed to change from regional mixed use, which normally goes to general commercial, but it was proposed to change to community mixed use, which suggests a walkability that I don't think is there.

And so I suggested that I thought it was more appropriate at general commercial the way the rest of the regional mixed use were generally changed.

Are there uses that would be excluded if it were general commercial?

Residential would still be allowed.

Still would be allowed.

As a secondary use.

Secondary.

Or it's not, maybe it's not in yet, I don't know.

So the ramifications of being secondary, just so everybody knows.

That this I think informs very well what you were talking about earlier right because the Response sorry the response that this is a secondary use.

I'm like well.

I don't know if that means it's a

by Wright use that is just less desirable.

Most of this property be residential, then it would not be in compliance with a comprehensive plan.

However, if you had less than 50% of the entire property in residential, that would comply.

And of course you could always bring it back for a comprehensive plan amendment with a rezoning as well.

That's what you would be setting up on this parcel if we made the change for discussion today.

It does, if you could refresh my memory that under the existing comprehensive plan

You know what?

Tori, do you know?

So in the current 2015 comprehensive plan, it is part industrial and part regional mixed use.

So I'm not real comfortable, and maybe it's because I'm not a land use expert, but I'm never very comfortable in changing in midstream.

The problem is that we're taking the existing categories and moving them in different directions, and this particular category is getting split two ways.

It's a question of which way does it get split.

Supervisor McKeel.

I've got a little bit of good news that may help.

We are expecting a resubmittal, but we do not have an application in our hands right now.

Yeah, that's what I'm concerned about.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

With that, I think we should go to the actions.

And again, the question is whether we try to do all four objectives at once or break it up into pieces.

I guess, how many of you have on a slide?

Because it would be nice to be able to look at them while we're discussing them.

So yeah, let's do one, then we'll do two and three together since they're together on a slide, and then we'll do four.

I think that's probably the most efficient way to see what we're doing while we're doing it.

Thank you.

So 1.2, my concern here is how does this ordinance or how does the comp plan protect the loss of employment space?

because using the Crozet downtown as an example, it has been, since 2005 and probably further back, the community has been much more interested in, or really, really interested in getting more jobs for people who live there so that it reduces the amount of driving into town and all the 250 traffic, et cetera.

So I'm worried about.

and how 1.2 would impact the loss of employment space.

If it were limited to only LI and HI, then that's a concern.

If it's C and C1, then I have less concern.

I think at the action level in the comp plan, we were keeping it a little bit more high level to be determined with the zoning ordinance update.

OK, so if you would save that note for when you get to that other point, and just

The rest of objective one I'm happy with.

I'm very much priority for the structured parking as we need it all over the place if we're going to get more density.

So 1.7 is a high priority for me.

Thank you.

Now for this page,

I don't have any problems.

I did star the 1.7 because I thought that, I personally thought that that was good.

For 1.9, the monitor, the proportion of development occurring within the development areas, etc.

compared with the rural area.

Yes, that's correct.

So, don't we know or do we know in the rural area how many, what's the max capacity of the Bi-Rite building that can occur in the rural area?

The 21 acre rule makes it very difficult to know whether you can divide a property into different 21 acre parcels.

My point is, if it's proportional

And we're just taking how many units built in an area by right compared to the development area.

I'm not comfortable with that as the proportional analysis.

And it seems to me that we would have a better chance at getting at to what's allowed in the rural area, even based on our current rural area standards.

And knowing which development rights do exist, I understand there's some complications.

But it'd be a hell of a lot easier getting at a ballpark number than it is in the development area for potential building out.

But my point is, if we say we have 17% new units, but that 17% is just because those new units came online, how does that become a way to proportionally analyze that we need to push things to the development area?

If buy right activity, maybe it would have been 40% was allowed in the rural area.

And we had 40% new retail units out there.

But if that was all buy right and allowed under rural area zoning,

then I think that it could vary in a way that I'm not confident in, start pushing like we've got an issue happening in the rural area.

Therefore, we have to increase the density even higher in the development area.

There's just got to be a way to figure out with some at least ballpark way to go, all right, we've got this many properties that are not development, this many development rights that haven't taken advantage of.

you know, the mobile home application that was in front of us.

The buy right was six units on that particular property.

So right there, I know there's six.

Well, you know, if that six develops out by right and another ten properties build six units and we've got sixty new units, well that's all okay based on our rules.

So why should that drive some sort of proportional

Trigger that the development area must have stuff driven into it.

I understand, but it says monitor the proportion of development occurring within the development areas compared with the rural area.

But if we're just comparing, then it says, if the proportion of residential development begins to increase in the rural area, develop options for further encouraging and directing growth to development areas.

I think it might be one indicator that development is happening more frequently and it's easier to do in the rural area.

We don't want development, period, in the rural area.

Right.

And we don't want the folks that got the buy right development rights to build their units.

I mean, that's basically what we do.

We don't want units.

We don't want development out there.

but it is allowed and there are bi-rate development rights in the rural area and they can do that.

We don't have any will or ability to stop that from happening.

My concern is if folks take their bi-rate, build their residential units out in the rural area, which tend to be single-family detached homes,

Jody Filardo, Community Development Director.

You talk so softly.

Okay, I'm trying to swallow the mic here a little bit.

Jody Filardo, Community Development Director.

Supervisor Galloway, I think the intention of this is a much more blunt instrument than you are expecting.

What we're trying to make sure of is that we have some kind of litmus test to understand are people choosing to build in the development area.

My understanding of this particular item was not to be punitive or to

Disallow people who have by right development opportunities in the rural area from developing But really it was more to be able to come to the board and say board We were trying to make the development area some fabulous place for people to live work and play We really want people to build and develop there, but we wanted to let you know that

We're not seeing much development in the development area and we're seeing this big growth of development in the rural area.

So it was really intended as a much more blunt instrument than I think you are anticipating.

I don't know if that helps, but that was really the intention of this.

So we can go back and take a look at the wording of this to reflect that better.

But it was really to give you all just kind of like a litmus test to understand what we thought would make the development area robust and active and desirable may not be working because people are fleeing to the rural area.

It was that kind of a thing.

Well, I appreciate that.

And I don't think we should use one year as a baseline if you do stick with the approach.

Agreed.

So that's just an arbitrary pick of a number.

And oh, it's the last year.

But that's not a way to form a baseline if we're going to do proportional analysis.

The fact is that there's very few.

I mean, there's Bi-Rite projects that are happening in the development area right now that are single-family detached.

But at most, there are two.

So the type of home that you can build in the rural area, you can't build in the development area.

And if it's a rezoning, it'll never happen because we're putting that density all in there.

I'm just saying that it seems that we have an amount that no matter what we do is going to be allowable in the rural area.

And that we should be able to back into that number in an easier way or in some theoretical way, just like we say what our capacity is in the development area.

So that then we can say, all right, is there pressure to go beyond

in the rural area what's allowed already.

Like we just assume that we're going to do something that's greater than what's allowed in the development area.

And we want the reverse in the rural area, but let's be realistic about what's already allowed.

And I don't know that number.

I don't know.

If somebody said, well, based on the property that's out there in the 95% and people's buy right and their development rights, how many homes do you think could build in the rural area?

I don't know the answer to that.

I just don't want that, oh, if 50 units popped up in the rural area one year, and that turned into whatever the percent is, and I don't know how the percents are.

But maybe I'm just being overly concerned that one nine looks like it's trying to trigger, because it does say.

monitor the proportion of development, if the proportion of residential building is to increase in the rural area, develop options for further encouraging and directing growth to development areas.

Well, that's the whole, I mean, the whole plan is kind of like that.

Why are we adding this extra layer of saying, well, since this buy right activity is happening out there, we've got to do something more than what we're already doing by having a development area and rural area defined.

I don't know.

Just judging how differently two of us interpreted that, I thought it was describing the snapshot that we get quarterly about where the building was happening.

And that was my superficial look at it, but I didn't think about it.

But when you start doing proportional analysis, it almost suggests that, oh, we're getting too much out here and not enough here.

Well, OK, that might be true, but it's not because of the units building in the rural area.

Some say it's because our developer incentive program doesn't work.

and some say it's because it takes too long to get stuff, you know, there's a myriad of reasons why we could say, well, things aren't happening in the development area and I think we're going to be responsible and try to address all those.

All right, I'll stop.

Thank you.

So I was actually going to speak to this.

So I will just say, Supervisor Gallaway, I agree with you on many things, maybe most things on land use and I strongly disagree with you on this one.

And I do think I mean I will turn to staff I think this might be in here because I talked about this I don't know if it prefigured me being on the board like I think this might be a Supervisor Pruitt action I think yes, okay, it is um and so I just want to make the case for this right this is responsive to I would say a

As a resident of, as a Scottsville district representative and a person representing the south side, this is responsive to two very different and distinct sets of constituent concerns that I hear from different blocks and it connects those two concerns in a way that I think is very elegant and a blunt instrument.

My equity-focused citizens who primarily live in the urban area, who are often involved in public advocacy, are very concerned about the density that we are accomplishing in our development area and whether or not we can continue to accomplish the density and, frankly, just the deployment of housing units that we need in the existing development area.

There are people who are concerned that the development area is not big enough and that infill is going to be more challenging.

and separately, there are constituents in the rural area who want to preserve the rural character of the rural area.

And what is not stated in there, but I think is also true, but a working class character of the rural area, especially in my district on the south side.

It shouldn't be lost on the board that as it is more challenging or less desirable to live in the urban area,

that goes somewhere.

And that results in something that frankly disrupts what my rural constituency wants, which is a

Rural working class area that preserves that character and preserves that natural environment.

The creation, the deployment of housing units by right in the rural area right now are very different in character than what are historically in these areas.

And I recognize that it's by right.

But insofar as we have a normative view of what we want to see there, I think it's important to have a warning light when our policies are not working as intended.

when what is happening with our development area, what is happening with our availability by right uses is resulting in a consumption of our rural communities and a significant shift in their character.

This I see as providing an opportunity for staff to highlight a warning light

when we

A pressing and central enough concern in a lot of Southside residents that I think it does bear lampshading in the comprehensive plan's actual actions.

I don't see it as something that creates a

a punitive element, right?

I see this as something that it highlights to staff that we deserve a report when this becomes serious or untenable.

And I think the language I read here leaves it to staff's discretion as to when that ratio is triggered.

And I don't think that's out of whack.

If we had a year where 50% of all developments were in the rural area, that is actually alarming.

That means we're fundamentally failing in how we're deploying incentives.

That means something is wrong with our development incentives.

That means something is wrong with the available land we have left.

That means something is wrong.

Something is wrong if that is happening.

And I think that warrants a report to the board so that we can re-evaluate it.

And so I believe that this is a

I have no issue with 1.9 as drafted.

And I don't think I have a question, Jody.

I realize you're just standing there and receiving this.

You can sit if you want to.

But I just wanted to provide, I think, a differing perspective on that, because I'm not sure.

I think it needs to be revisited.

It does need to be revisited.

I'm not sure the content is there as much as just clarification.

If there are misinterpretations as to

a potential punitive element that this might have or a restriction that we might deploy because I don't think that's the goal.

I think it's an evaluative tool for this board.

The one other thing I want to raise, and I think it's particularly prudent because I did think about this, so I want to talk about 1.5 and how that also informs, and this may not trigger a language change, but I just want to voice this.

I thought about this when

when the Natural Heritage Committee was talking to us earlier about dark skies and I want to make sure that the way we implement this is smart.

It significantly raises the cost for development if I want to build a public garage and it requires a special use permit, if I have to do some kind of survey that I have to draw down some contractors for, that I have to

implement pay additional costs for up front that I have to prepare for a legislative review showing what my lighting and spillover might be.

That is a significant additional cost up front.

The desired outcome is good.

But I would wonder, and maybe this isn't something that should be included in this implementation here, but I voiced this for the board's consideration, for staff's consideration,

I think it's always desirable if we have clear standards rather than the requirement that people develop surveys or studies that we can review legislatively.

So I'm saying there should be a clear, these are the types of lighting that are appropriate.

These are the standards of lighting penetration beyond your borders that are appropriate, rather than things that have to

Significantly create an upfront burden on the development and planning for a site because that does, it affects our ability to deploy economic development tools.

It affects the ability to deploy new job creating properties.

It creates an additional cost that gets translated into rent on residential developments.

I like the goal.

I want to retain the goal.

I want to make sure whatever language we use either here or when we actually turn to the zoning code captures that, right?

I'm not interested in continuing to require study after study.

I don't want a bullet point list of two dozen studies that a developer has to accomplish and bring to us that I'm not going to read.

just to get something approved for a special use permit.

I raised that here because that's the first one that came across it.

I'm sure it's implicated by other things throughout here, but I just wanted to raise that.

And again, I don't know if there's language that needs to be inserted on that.

Thank you.

Yes, I'm going to say it a different way because I'm going to tell you what I see the problem is.

I'm not sure I have any solutions, but I agree with Mike.

We are losing the ability for working folks to live in this community.

I'm just saying.

and the property is not as expensive in the rural area.

The manufactured home proposal offered a great opportunity, but we couldn't approve it.

We couldn't, as a board, approve it because it wasn't in the comp plan.

I'm not sure how we solved that problem, but we have become an aspen.

and our workers are having to live outside and drive in, which environmentally and in many other ways is not healthy, it's not a good thing.

And how we get at this, because we, I'm just saying that there are working people that should be able to live in our community and it seems like to me the only place that they're going to be able to live is in the rural area because the land is not as expensive.

So we've got to figure out a way to make it so that they can do that.

Now, you guys are the experts, but I'm getting at what you're saying in a very different way.

And I'm way up here and not into the details.

But I am terribly concerned that folks that teach and firefighters and police officers and people that work on our automobiles

The people that work in our stores can't live in this community and we've got to figure out how we're going to solve that problem.

And I don't think it necessarily means that we have to expand the, I'm just, but to get to that is really critical.

That's a philosophical statement.

I do agree on going back to the page that we're looking at here.

One of my other frustrations is all of the empty parking lots we have in the development area.

And if you go into those parking lots, they have signs that say, don't park here, towing enforced.

Nobody's parking there.

Is there a way that we can, and I understand, Neil, that they're private property, but is there a way that we can work with them?

Somehow or another, we've got to figure this out.

because it's wasted land in the development area.

It's wasted space.

Some of them border right on our parks.

People could park or park their bicycles or their cars and use our trails if they could park.

But they're going to be towed away if they park in those places.

I'm sorry, but it just seems like to me.

I made a couple of notes here.

Let me just go back to them.

Oh, here it was.

And I know we talk about the terrible word seems to be incentives, right?

Trying to figure out incentives.

But for example, Albemarle School, well, I don't have to go into all of them.

You all know them.

But is there a way that we could figure out some criteria that, by right, some of this could happen in some of these areas, in these parking areas, where we could actually

use them for, I don't know, residential or, and maybe I'm living in la la land, but it just seems like to me we have acres and acres of unused parking.

We certainly don't want to be creating anymore, so I get with the changes to the parking requirements, but just to think about that from the, anyway.

and I guess that's all.

I have some other comments for, I really always, I do go back to 1.10, 1.10, LUPIC and the third-party agreement, that is really important for our community.

The LUPIC is a process that has been really working well.

I think we could strengthen it if they looked at more issues like the lighting

Ordinances and Dark Skies, if they looked at them from the lens of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and the university, and took some of those on.

One of the problems we had with its predecessor was that it just became a meeting where people were getting reports, and sometimes the same reports over and over again.

My hope is that Blue Pig actually

gets to the meat of some of these issues and allows those localities to get together and actually solve some problems.

And I guess with that I am

I'll stop.

Weird.

Weird.

I mean, I guess it's a good word.

It's not clear to me that you can compare what's going on in the rural area.

I also am very sensitive, and this is the last comment I'll make about this, very sensitive to the fact that when we went through the ag forest districts recently, there was an effort to just look at those parcels that were in ag forest districts and figure out what their development rights were.

And that was a massive undertaking that had been postponed for years.

because of the nature of how much effort it would take going through the county deeds and everything else to try to figure out what people's development rights are.

And to ask staff to do that for the entire rural area, not just the Forestville districts, I think is way more than they should be asking at this point.

I just wanted to say regarding item 1.9,

I agree also with Supervisor Galloway.

If it's a one-year study, I don't think that's beneficial.

I'm not quite sure.

I didn't bring it up before because I'm not quite sure why we're monitoring that.

I think whatever is happening in the rural area is going to happen.

I think most of the land is privately owned.

I don't think we own a lot of land in the rural area, do we?

Maybe some land.

So if we're going to develop that for affordable housing, OK.

But otherwise people are going to do what they're going to do.

You're not going to have large developments in the rural area and the development area you are.

I mean they're almost like two separate groups doing two different types of buildings.

Single-family homes versus larger developments.

One other question, thank you, for 1.5.

Do we not have, regarding lighting requirements, I do agree with Supervisor Pruitt, don't we have something that a developer has saying these are the things you should be using?

We do have lighting ordinance.

OK, Jody is nodding her head because if we have something saying, just like our native plants list, these are the plants you should be using.

So if we have something regarding lighting or updated lighting, these are things you should be using.

I mean, I agree.

Jody Filardo, Community Development Director, we do have standards and the standards are specific but we do not have a list of unlike our plant list where we have species

Families and Species specified in our lighting ordinance presently as part of our zoning ordinance so that it will come to you all in the zoning ordinance modernization.

We do have standards, but we don't say pick from this list or anything of particular lights, but we do have standards.

And so you'll see more of that with the zoning ordinance.

Technology will continue to change.

So we go on to both objectives two and three since they fit on one page.

Thank you.

My only comment is 2.3 is the high, high, high priority for the

A success of the middle density and smaller units.

So that's all.

We're accomplishing 2.6 starting this afternoon.

So I'm well.

I don't have to phrase that one.

Thank you.

Oh, three.

Let's see.

No, I'm all set with three as well.

Yes, for two and three, I have no comments.

I have no concerns about the text that's currently there and I regret board that I do have something that occurred to me in my work that is not captured here.

I encountered it in a different county's comprehensive plan and I throw it out here for y'all's reflection knowing that maybe we won't have enough support for it but that is that we consider barriers to affordability created by standards that impact non-standard family and household structures.

What we're getting here is boarding houses, cohabitation, and group homes.

We do have regulations regarding some of these, but this gets to how we define single family, how we define group home, how we define boarding house.

and whether or not that's actually consistent with our own goals, whether or not the way we've structured that creates additional cost burdens on individuals.

Currently, in certain residential districts, more than two people cannot cohabitate if they are not related.

That is not true of all residential districts.

There's a cross-cutting based on whether or not your R1, it's very interesting.

And there are additionally sometimes fair housing concerns as relates to group homes and recovery residences that this can trigger.

This came up once via an email, but I don't know that the board has ever grappled with it.

I raise this for the board's consideration.

It doesn't mean we have to

I don't really think right now.

And I have no additional comments, but I will second Supervisor Pruitt's comment in that I agree that some language talking about how we review those requirements and whether they present a barrier or not is important.

I think there will also be some legal review in that in that there are already requirements, I believe, in state law that certain types of group homes must be allowed to exist regardless of whether the people living there are related.

That's information that I think should be brought before the board at some point to find out whether we need to open up more possibilities.

I've mentioned in connection with the housing summit how we have gone from, and I don't have the numbers in front of me as well as I did before, but it's like something like 15 million, no, it was a number of empty bedrooms, a dramatically increase up to like 40 million empty bedrooms now compared to how many empty bedrooms there were.

Oh, I just wrote high priority next to 4.1 and in 4.4.

Still concerned about bulldozing down forests, trees, buffers.

Oops, I didn't mean to do that.

Should not be allowed, because now it is a pattern.

The first guy got away with it, and now everybody else is just running crazy.

So this is really ruining any intent, stated or subtle.

to have any kind of tree grove.

So I don't know the solution to that, because I'm not sure we have the authority to do what we really need to do, which is to find the heck out of people when they do that.

And then they won't do it anymore.

But I'd hate for that to be something we do just on paper.

because that makes us look pretty stupid.

The only concern I have would be 4.4.

And I love the fact that we have trees.

I'd plant trees everywhere, plenty of trees.

However, street trees, depending on the location, it's interfering with some of our commercial.

So for example, if we put streets right in front of commercial, they're full leaf trees.

You cannot see the signs.

I experienced that in my area in a restaurant.

We're trying to improve people going there.

They had no signs, just on the side.

And then they got a sign in the front.

We have a couple of trees that are hiding the sign.

So I think there should be something in here that takes into account, when we look at trees, either maybe a tree in a bush

two bushes and a tree or some combination whereby, and I understand the shade canopy and everything, but a combination where we can support business plus have our trees.

So to be cognizant of that fact.

Otherwise, what we're doing is cutting off our nose to spite our face because we're not helping businesses, which we desperately need to do, and yet we still need the trees.

I think that's something that should be addressed in this, whichever one you want to address.

They're cognizant of where the trees are placed if they're in front of commercial areas with signs.

I don't know if this is the right place to put it, but it's where I thought of the note because of

43, 45, probably somewhat in 47.

But I think the county should take it upon themselves to really push in an application process, whether it's by right or rezoning, coordinating all the different utilities, VDOT, in the county in accordance.

Well, I know why I thought about it with the trees, because hearing of an example of, well, if the storm

Water infrastructure is supposed to be under the sidewalk and not out in the road, well then what can you plant if you only got but so far to go?

And then what does that do for the life of the tree being planted in that area with its infrastructure below it?

But without going into incredible detail with the project that this kind of illuminated this to me, it is a by-right project, but the process is getting slowed down in some ways it seems because of disagreement between

utility, VDOT, our own county engineers, then Slopes can get involved.

I mean, there's got to be a way to be able to just know all of this so you know what you can count on and come to some sort of agreement so that there doesn't have to be a judgment call on every single application.

I mean, if our tree ordinance is in competition with we want to put infrastructure under sidewalks, then we have to accept that fact and know that different types of plantings are going to have to exist probably above that infrastructure than if it wasn't there.

or VDOT's going to have to accept that some infrastructure gets put out in the roads even though they don't like in a manhole or whatever.

So I think there probably needs to be something in here that speaks to the county saying we want to be able to coordinate these different parties with the objective being not necessarily protecting tree coverage or anything else but getting to speed of the dam process and saying let's get this done faster and coordination of everybody being on the same page helps that.

and maybe gets rid of some of the bickering that often requires.

I know staff has given me examples of they have to get everybody in the room.

And it's like, well, why?

Why do we have to get everybody in the room every single time when we're all trying to get things approved and we all want?

We should be able to come up with some sort of similar agreement where we should strive to, in my opinion.

I like the text that's here.

The thing I would raise is what I raised in the first section.

And this, I think, sounds in the same kind of vein as Supervisor Gallaway's point.

But I would always be interested in standards, articulable standards, standards that don't necessarily require discretionary review over surveys, over processes.

And I realize this is my very layman's assessment and that this is probably complicated to implement, but I raise that again.

And again, I'm not sure if this requires any change in language here.

And I also do just have a question, and this might not be related, but this chapter evokes it to me.

Okay.

And I say this recognizing that localities have little power because we are not the energy regulators, but

I'm thinking recently, because of our recent conversation about the burdens that affect working families in the rural area, I'm thinking about the implications that environmental policy has on this and the types of environmental harm that can result from different kinds of energy policy.

I want to just recognize and raise that there are

There are burdens that we have a hard time controlling that fall on certain populations that are related to energy costs that can be quite extraordinary, especially in the fringes of this county.

This isn't an urban area thing, but several of the language here triggered me on this, and I'm not sure it's currently addressed in our comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Yeah, 4.1.

I definitely agree with that.

Having said that, just a couple of thoughts.

Some of this page does lead me to the idea that we're not very far away from needing a public utilities department.

Some of what we need to do would be done by a public utilities department.

I'm just saying.

Now, that doesn't mean tomorrow, but for example, we talk about planting trees, and I am so sad in the spring when I drive through parts of Charlottesville, I will say, and not so much Albemarle, but Charlottesville, and I see the bags of death.

Those green bags they put around the trees when they plant them, and then the next time you come around, they're dead.

So trying to figure out how to avoid that happening is another thought.

So when we're talking about updating street requirements, spacing soil buffers, all of those things that go along with planting.

if we're going to plan to make sure it lives, excuse me.

And I do think that at some point we're going to be looking at, we're going to be needing a public utilities department in the way of how we do some of this.

I'm just saying it gets to some of our frustration Ned and I have had in the urban areas along maintenance and upkeep.

On 4.6, I would add UVA architectural school

And the reason is because they do a great job of integrating nature with their urban design.

Some of their work over the university on their new developments is outstanding.

Daylighting and working in tight spaces.

So if we could, they have great expertise, is what I guess I'm saying here.

And I guess that I do agree with some of what the folks here were saying about the needs of looking at some of these other points.

But I think I'm good for right now.

Thank you.

And I have no additional comments.

Well, we have less than 10 minutes left of scheduled time, so we'll see how it goes.

I actually don't think I have any complaints.

Oh, the only comment I would have on the transportation page, number four on the left, separate bicycle infrastructure, to be thinking that there are some places, and I'm thinking of Route 29, where it's not possible

to create right there.

But there are lots of parallel roads like Berkmar, which is already laid out, where the bicyclers can move up a block and go over there.

So as long as we're finding a way to say

that.

So that it's like saying we're going to provide something for all people in the world.

We can't do that and so let's try to tighten up our language a little bit on that on page four.

And oops, what's over here?

Let's see.

Okay.

Best practices on page nine.

Is there a way to have, under number one, having a percentage of the very small houses?

They talk about mixed uses.

We're always suggesting we'd like to have all these things.

And the elements of it that the residents and the communities want the most are not necessarily the ones that the developers want to build.

So I just throw that problem out there.

transit, are there more things that can be incorporated since the county can have proffers adjacent to projects so that it's required to have benches, shelters, those kinds of things as part of a rezoning instead of always having the county have to come back later and pick those up.

Number five, and you have these already, number five, the micro, I don't know what microbility devices are unless it's gators and gators in the street is a really bad thing.

So I just want to make sure we're having a real problem with that in Crozet and public safety is having problems with it as well.

and the last one I would suggest under Parks and Recreation on page 9 to add something.

Number 4, use sustainable trail design because right now

We're putting trails right next to streams where they're getting washed out immediately.

Whenever there's high water, bridges are washing away.

And it's also the construction of those trails that's causing buffer, the destruction that then causes a downward spiral.

The Forest Service has really great design guidelines for things like that.

And the last thing, number three under parks, my suggestion would be and or restored, period, because any time

We say, where possible, it's never possible.

So I would just suggest we have some rules and stick with them.

I would suggest they're saying build a full range of housing choices and housing types throughout development areas.

Would that be assumed that it includes high rise, higher rise apartments in suitable places?

OK.

and number four, I'm just wondering how many, this is off the subject a little bit, how many applications have been received with our new 20% requirement?

Do we know?

I heard it.

I saw a number back there.

One.

Okay.

Okay.

Just wondering.

And number eight, emphasize the reuse of existing development area sites, especially outdated uses with large parking lots, which is what Supervisor McKeel was talking about.

Once again, I put in the high rise concept.

We only have a few in the development area.

Under transportation, number seven,

I would love to see additional roundabouts and even what we call mobile roundabouts which are smaller and a lot less expensive.

That would be because I think those are real safety and traffic calming measures right there.

The last

on page 9 references best practices.

The trees and such are very good.

But we are for protection for pedestrians, et cetera, et cetera.

But it also says transparent windows along the first floor of buildings, especially along major corridors.

I would have been there also referring to businesses, once again covering signs that we don't want covered because we want the businesses to dwell.

And that's the end of my comments.

Thank you.

I'm pretty satisfied with most of this.

I would just make a couple.

Well, one's a really small comment.

I have noticed throughout several chapters, and I don't know if it's the spacing used, but you have a lot of places where there's no spaces between words.

I would imagine at some point that'll get caught by the final editor and all that down the road.

You see it once, but now I feel like it's like, oh, I bought a red car.

Now everybody owns a red car.

So there's a lot of places in other chapters I've noticed that, too.

And again, sometimes when you pick certain types of spacing, there's probably a space there, but it looks like there's no space there.

Maybe there's just a minute.

So for what it's worth.

Page three, number six.

Oh, I agree with that.

I'm sorry, page three.

I was looking at number three.

Number three I agree with.

I've been in agreement with that when we've used that rationale for some other applications.

Oh, number six was the example.

Conserving critical looks like one word in this space.

Number seven, I appreciate that statement, recognizing that not all circumstances or properties are the same.

And thus, I think flexibility is a key.

in everything we do.

So I think anywhere that can have some emphasis on it is proper.

I think the only thing missing, I feel like, and I don't know if it's appropriate here or not, but on page nine when we use these best practices under land use, we're strongly, and this says in the preface, as a reference for the development community

and have been organized by the four design guideline categories.

Do we need to state in a land use piece, I get we're trying to get a mixture here that gets to affordability, but I think we should just call out the developers that applications with a maximum amount of affordable units in it is a good thing.

We want to encourage that and strongly invite that.

But if this seems to be a place, well, let's go look at these best practices that we should follow.

And it doesn't mention affordable in the way that Housing Albemarle was called out earlier in the first whatever page that was.

But I think under the best practices under land use, there could be a statement here that backs up our desire for affordable units and that development projects should be brought forward or encouraged to be brought forward with as many affordable units as possible.

Thank you.

I would echo that point.

I think that's really well taken.

Again, kind of trying to articulate what the audience for this is, I see as this being kind of a standing document of the board of what we expect to see on individual decisions that come before us so that the new developer, for example, who is not familiar with our region could say, oh, what is the board like?

And they could think, oh, I'll come here, and this will give me some kind of broad strategic things that are on their mind, even if they're not articulable in discrete policies.

So insofar as that's true, yeah, we should articulate that because I think it's accurate that we generally want to see as much affordability as they can manage and as much density as is permitted, if not more.

We often look at more densities than permitted.

In fact, we exclusively look at more densities than permitted.

So I would highlight that.

Otherwise, I think I'm for the most part fine.

There are two things I just want to highlight.

One of this is probably going to gesture maybe a bit toward my ignorance of individual site design requirements, but I look at site design.

And this may already be true.

I'm pretty sure it is true in our entrance corridor.

But page seven, I look at two and three.

And I take that together.

And I say, every single person is expected to walk around the building.

They have to park in the back.

And they have to enter in the front.

I read that as saying that.

I don't think that's wrong.

And I wonder if that is something we actually want to require people to do.

It is an aesthetic thing, right?

It is appropriate in our entrance corridors.

I don't know if it is appropriate in pan tops, right?

Where someone's going to be whipping off a very busy area.

They're going to want to go in their advanced auto for a quick in and out.

And they don't want to, around to the front door that has to be facing outward from their parking lot that has to be facing behind.

Do I raise that up?

I'm not sure it's appropriate outside the entrance corridor, which I say that now.

I think Pantops is in the entrance corridor, so screw me.

But point being, I'm not sure this is the appropriate thing in all situations.

Maybe my board disagrees with me.

The other thing, and this is even more minor, Parks and Rec, number one, I think this list of potential activities is not consistent.

Oh, sorry.

I apologize.

Reference best practices on page nine, Parks and Rec number one.

I think this list is not internally consistent with other parts of the comprehensive plan, which it doesn't have to be, but it should be.

What I mean by is I'm not sure ninja play equipment is talked about in the Parks and Rec chapter.

I like the idea.

I'm not saying to get rid of it.

This doesn't talk about splash parks, which I know are discussed in the Parks and Rec chapter.

There are sections where we currently say, like, these are the amenities we expect in an urban park, these are the amenities we expect in a rural park.

I think they should probably be consistent across them so that it's not unclear, OK, do you want me to build a water feature?

Do you want me to build a natural playscape, which to me means like a bunch of logs and stuff?

Do you want me to build a tween American Ninja Warrior scape?

We're telling them different things.

I'm sorry, can't hear.

Aren't climbing walls usually inside a building?

Under transportation, I really, really like 8 and 9 when we're talking about connectivity.

The problem is we talk about connectivity all the time and we end up sacrificing it because of pushback.

how we get that into what we actually do, right?

Because neighbors don't want connectivity.

Communities don't want connectivity.

And so we have it here, but we've got to figure out how to implement it.

And I think Fairfax, at one point, had a real problem with trying to get connectivity.

And they solved it by just saying, this is the way it is, and we're not going to discuss it, right?

Having said that, but we've got to figure out how to get all these communities connected.

Or I say all, but at least the ones that make sense.

Because almost every proposal we have, the neighbors are coming and saying, we don't want to be connected to him.

We don't want to be connected over there.

We want Ballard's here.

But it really is important.

I will go back to best practices and this gets at what Ned said but a best practice for us should be to coordinate with VDOT and with our water and sewer folks, with the city perhaps, all of these because what happens in my district is VDOT comes in and paves and then two months later we're digging it up to put in a water pipe

or a sewer pipe.

So if we can figure out how to get all of these businesses and organizations, utilities, whatever you want to call them, together and figure out how to coordinate these projects, it would be cheaper for everybody, less impact on the neighborhoods,

I can give you at least four instances in the Jack Jouett district where we put down something and then came back within six months and started digging it up again so that somebody else could do something.

And I'm sorry, I know I harp on this to death, but this is a great place for LUPIC to talk.

LUPIC has all those people at the table.

Twice a year they ought to be looking at their

projects and how to put them together.

And I know they're doing better than they did five or six years ago, but there's still a lot of work that needs to be done in getting this construction and infrastructure together.

And let's see.

I agree with Bea.

If we could get VDOT to put in smaller roundabouts, they're less expensive.

You see them all over Europe.

VDOT has a tendency to want to put in everything that works on the interstate highway, right?

and in the urban areas, smaller sometimes is better.

That includes a lot of things about size of roads and everything, but smaller is always better.

And I will say, this gets back again to some of this best practice.

I'm looking at thinking that eventually we're going to have to have more of a public utilities department than we have to do some of this.

Having said that, I don't want to lose track of parking garages and art.

especially in certain doesn't mean that every parking garage should have three or four spaces dedicated space for an artist but when we went to Greenville we saw that in the right areas they put in the parking garages and then identified

Two, three of those spaces that an artist could have a space.

And it was really just wonderful.

So just a little tickler.

If you talk about wanting people to live in the development area, let's bring in some activities that really make them want to live there.

So anyway, that's all I have.

Two quick things.

Page three, just to point out that there's another one of those little maps that has a bunch of colors and a bunch of shapes.

And I don't know what they need.

Page four, could you talk the difference between number five and 13?

Since five does talk about housing units, 13 talks about commercial and employment versus mixed uses.

You said five and 13, right?

Yeah.

We could probably combine the two.

OK, thank you.

Are there any other additional comments?

We also had sort of other categories.

I don't know if there was any other category that has not yet been touched on.

I digressed enough.

I'd like to revisit the updates to the FLM, the two proposals.

Just the two.

Yes, I need clarity that the consensus of the board is that we should make those changes.

Do we want a motion?

Just around the horn.

I think it would be sufficient.

Can we go over again exactly what was being proposed for... There's one in Crozet.

Crozet.

Yeah, I don't have a problem.

We'll go to the... this one I don't have an issue with.

Go to the

What's here now is regional, mixed-use, and industrial.

And it would be changing... I'm sorry.

The suggestion is... Regional and then that purple.

I'm looking at these two.

and then it switches to community mixed use and industrial.

And what was your point again, Jim?

I don't know.

I just want to give the opportunity.

I'm kind of on the fence right now.

I'm not there.

May I ask a clarifying question?

Between these two alternatives, are there uses that would be either allowed or prohibited?

Or is it pretty much the same uses, but perhaps different proportions?

I mean, the connectivity to other parts over to Fontaine, for example, I think was the basis for one of the reasons to change this so that it would be more connected to itself and or recognizing that it was more vehicular than pedestrian.

Is that right?

OK.

I think my, I'm sorry.

It's only the residential being secondary.

My concern is that we have other areas that are commercial where residential isn't necessarily either proportionally was wanting to be less or that we're finding we're having issues getting it in there like I this is a this is something I struggle with because we need certain commercial sites of a certain size to accommodate some things that we don't now they're not

They're not past tier one.

I mean, these would all be economic development-wise, tier one places.

And we need something better.

But on the other hand, places that were designed to try to be those type of places are not being successful in putting the commercial activity in there and are coming back and asking us to convert it to residential.

So that's kind of my struggle with this one.