Board of Supervisors AC44 Work Session - Final Draft Review   9/10/2025

I'm pleased to call to order this meeting of the Board of Supervisors, September 10th, 2 p.m.

in room 241 of the county office building.

Our supervisor Ann Mallek from the White Hall District, Supervisor Bea LaPisto-Kirtley from the Rivanna District, Supervisor Diantha McKeel from the Jack Jouett District, and I'm Jim Andrews,

The quorum is present in person.

Supervisor Galloway is unable to be here today.

Supervisor Pruitt, I understand, would like to participate remotely and since he has

Rules of Procedure, Rule No.

8b1d, enacted pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

We have our county attorney, Mr. Andy Herrick, we have our clerk, Claudette Bargerson, and we have many members of staff that will be introduced as we go.

We also are joined by Lieutenant Angela Jamerson and Master Police Officer Dana Reeves.

Thank you, Chair Andrews and Board of Supervisors.

As you mentioned, I'm Jody Filardo, Community Development Director.

Joining me today at the table, I have my Deputy Director, Bart Svoboda, to my left.

To his left, I've got Michael Barnes, our Director of Planning.

Our presenter today will be Tanya Schwartzendruber, our planning manager.

And behind her is the rest of the long-range team.

We've got James Wilkinson, Ben Holt, and David Benesch.

So thank you all for being here.

It's going to be a fun afternoon.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley, I promise it will be fine.

I just wanted to take a minute to thank everybody who has gotten us to this point.

Certainly you all as supervisors have been relentless in your review of everything we have thrown at you and we know it's been volumes and volumes and we're very grateful.

As you know, the Planning Commission has also supported this effort.

The community has come out to all sorts of

stakeholder engagement opportunities both online and in person and we've had agency partners that have weighed in as well and certainly all of our colleagues here at the county too so just wanted to say thank you to everyone and acknowledge all the work that's taken to get us to this point.

I believe we are going to go through section by section

Our hope today is to reach consensus.

Sadly, we know that Supervisor Galloway can't be here, and so what we're hoping to do is move forward with items that you all in the room and Supervisor Pruitt online feel aligned with.

We'll take as consensus and move forward with those.

If there are things that for some reason you all just cannot come to consensus on, what we're going to do is take note of those and set them to the side.

After this meeting, we intend to get with Supervisor Galloway on both the build-out analysis that he has questions on and was unable to bring them up.

at the board meeting where we last considered that, and also give him a chance to weigh in on any considerations he might have.

If there are things he shares with us that don't align with what we've heard in this meeting today, it's our intention to make a list of those things.

And as we move forward into October 15th, which we hope will be adoption day, what we're going to do is start with that list and bring those to your attention.

we thought we'd bring them back to you so that the whole entire board could consider whatever these particular items might be just as a rule of thumb for managing this process.

and hopefully we won't have any of those things but just in case we do we've got a way of managing them for you to come to consensus finally on adoption day.

Good afternoon.

I am Tanya Schwartzendruber, Planning Manager for Community Development Department.

We are here today to talk about the initial draft of AC44.

Our agenda, I'll go through a little bit of a phase recap and also go into our last phase, phase four.

Go through our schedule, a few of the updates that were made to the draft document, as well as the PC feedback that we heard a few weeks ago.

Just a little reminder on tracking and reporting, and then we'll get into our discussion.

As usual, we've got a couple of questions that we have that we'd like for you to answer.

That last one is a very specific one that we wanted to get some clarification on and anything else as we go through each section.

So just as a reminder, this is a four-phase project and we are in the final phase, that last phase four.

Just as a quick recap of those initial phases, beginning with phase one, we developed our AC44 framework with our guiding principles of what type of community we'd like to be over the next 20 years.

We also took a look at our growth management policy.

which included our 2022 build-out analysis which was updated as you heard last week to establish a baseline for growth capacity within the existing development area and provide guidance for future decisions related to our development area.

We also identified land use topics that needed further consideration or guidance such as rural interstate interchanges and rural area land uses.

In Phase 2, we drafted goals and objectives for each topic chapter and developed planning toolkits as a way to coordinate land use and transportation planning, which included identification of activity center locations,

and other topics.

In Phase 3, we drafted actions to support those goals and objectives, which included, we also talked about and created our implementation strategies, which included big moves to prioritize plan recommendations, guide resource allocation, and also investments.

That brings us to our current phase four with a focus on the final plan document and we'll get into a little bit more detail in a moment.

Just as a reminder, in phase three that we just recently wrapped up, you know, our engagement really, as part of phase three, the engagement really played an important role in developing the plan that we're here to discuss today.

During phase three, we finalized our nine topic chapters.

which were reviewed in work sessions with both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors from fall of last year related through June.

This was followed by the implementation chapter and big moves presented in July.

Our public engagement for the plan content included a series of open house meetings and virtual check-ins to review each topic chapter.

In Phase 4, we've already gone ahead and published that draft document as you have seen online and has been sent to you in your packet.

During this phase, we'll also review and gather input both from the Planning Commission and yourselves as well as the community, which I'll talk about in a moment.

Then we'll update and finalize that plan according to that input and hopefully get the plan adopted.

So in Phase 4, we had our final public engagement, which was an open house held August 21.

We had approximately 30 attendees.

This included folks in person and online.

We reviewed the planned content, went over a few

materials about the plan, how it's organized, that sort of thing, as well as some of the feedback that we've heard.

So, as part of that effort, we had take-home QR code flyers where they

Participants could scan a code that took you to our Phase 4 website and provided an opportunity for input as well as if they wanted to provide input at the time.

Some of the topics that we heard about were transit, development area expansion, housing density, as well as public schools and childcare.

So our online engagement for phase four included a feedback opportunity.

But also, of course, we published our plan document.

And at last check, we had over 600 visits to this web page and well over 100 downloads for each part one, two, and three.

To gauge input or participants to gauge some feedback, we included a tool that assessed participants comfort level with the plan document.

And this tool was available until September 5th.

We received about 16 responses and honestly heard some of the same topics that came up during the open house.

Here's our schedule.

We just reviewed the public engagement input box.

As far as work sessions go, we were in front of the PC, the Planning Commission, about a week and a half ago, two weeks ago now.

On the same topic we're here before you today.

Last week you heard from Mr. Newberry giving an update on our build-out analysis and then we're looking to our public hearings and currently we have those scheduled for the Planning Commission on September 30th and Board of Supervisors on October 15th.

So during that public hearing from PC we'll be looking for a recommendation to adopt the plan and hopefully on the 15th you all will

I wanted to mention a few notable edits or additions to the plan document.

We did hear you on the seventh big move that focuses on social connection and building a sense of community.

In the growth management chapter, we added content for the development area utilization review and criteria for evaluating our development area boundaries per year direction.

In the rural areas chapter, we added content supporting agricultural and forestry uses, which includes distribution and aggregation facilities.

the thriving economy chapter has been updated to align language to support our economic development strategic plan and incorporates language to support our local agricultural community and updating our target industries.

For cultural resources, we incorporated

your feedback related to actions involving incentives and potential funding as well as identifying cultural resources and what that means.

As one of the longer chapters, content for community facilities chapter has been consolidated and shortened.

The transportation chapter now includes additional content related to recreation on rural roads.

Just as a reminder, we did touch on this I think the last time we talked about implementation, but we will be incorporating metrics to monitor trends and patterns associated with the big moves.

And for example, these metrics could include population growth and where it occurs, tracking affordable housing units, both preserved and new, as well as tracking cost-burdened households.

These metrics and tracking will be incorporated

into our annual report that we deliver.

To get into a little bit of the PC feedback, in general, the comments were, you know, we still needed to go through and do a little bit of editing for clarity and a consistent voice.

Those objectives should be achievable, which we will update those.

As we're going through, make sure that we take out the less suggestive language and be more deliberate for the objectives and actions.

Part one in general, PC agreed with all the content that we provided.

They did suggest maybe a slight reordering of the chapter to make it read and flow a little bit more logically.

For part two, they thought we should highlight the success of the growth management policy in preserving the rural area, as well as we should clarify the intention to maintain the current development area boundary as it is currently.

They did voice some concerns about removing and adding land within the development area.

In part three,

pretty much comfortable with the content.

They suggested that we include

some zoomed in or blow up sections of the future land use map as it is a pretty small scale.

I will note that once the plan is adopted, that layer will be available for use as part of our online GIS interactive tool.

So folks will be able to zoom in and zoom out as necessary.

They also suggested that we ensure that all the data and statistics are up to date, which is currently what we're doing.

It's going through that pass.

So I am going to put these questions back up on the screen.

I will also mention that PCE, as Director Falado

Intimated, they went through part by part and so they have a round of you know for each part commissioners gave their general impressions and thoughts and then they would go through and kind of section by section

State, if they had any comments.

This seemed to work pretty well if you all would like to adopt the same thing.

And as Jody suggested, we'd like to pause after each part so we can summarize what we heard and make sure that we can confirm consensus on those items.

Thank you.

And when we get to free flow, make sure Supervisor Pruitt that you jump in if your mic's live.

Otherwise, put your hand up and I'll try to make sure you get in.

But we'll start for now.

I need to get to the right page.

I've tried to be organized by just putting notes in.

And you will all be thrilled to know that I have many few with me.

Looks like it might be page 18.

Yes, the image is different.

That's what threw me off.

Very good.

Thank you.

The point that I raised originally, and I think it's important to make sure that we

They didn't all leave.

And this is the point that my neighbors, who are descended from the individuals here, say, we never left.

Please don't act like we went away.

Because while the larger settlements did have to move in order to not be in danger.

I appreciate that.

And with that, I'll make a couple of comments.

during this part portion of the discussion.

I was going to mention it later, but the small area plans, I would pretty much insist that the Lambs Lane campus small area plan be included.

And when we're talking about the Rio small area plan, we also have a small area plan for the Lambs Lane campus.

And it is in the Places 29 part of it.

Well, go ahead.

Finish.

But I do agree that it's part of the school property.

So go ahead.

And I interrupted you.

It's fine.

The community facilities chapter talks about facility schools and stuff like that.

We thought maybe that was the appropriate place to have any campus plans that we do for school facilities associated, not necessarily as a small area plan that we would normally do over multiple parcels.

An area of several dozen to a hundred parcels.

This one is more like something that might be more appropriate to a planning effort that went forward for a capital facility that is a school campus.

We thought we might include it in that part of the plan.

I guess I have to think about that.

That seems appropriate to me.

My concern is that we went through and we have a transportation project that is based on that small area plan, right?

And I don't want to lose sight of it because it's critical to both the schools and

Albemarle County.

Not to make too much of a fine point on it, but the schools, the elementary schools that are down between Avon and the one we're building, they're talking about having a pedestrian connection between the two schools.

I can see that be something analogous.

We might go to VDOT, try to get a safe routes to school grant, and try to make the connection, and it might reside in the campus plan.

So we haven't had a full chance to talk about it, so we can continue to take it as a replacement.

And I think that's fine.

I'll leave that up to you.

I just want to make sure that we end up with it in the document.

Yes, ma'am.

So it's not a plan that goes on a shelf and somebody says, wow, in 10 years, wow, we didn't even know we had this.

Yes, ma'am.

Because that can happen.

OK, thank you.

All right, that's excellent.

And I'll keep going then.

And I don't know that LLC here under small area plan there, so I'll keep going.

On page 16, I know I have problems with my eyes at my age, but I think these maps are out of focus if you look at them.

So you'll get that clarified.

That's really just a simple thing, but I'll look at it and I'll... Yeah.

Yes, that'd be great.

Thank you.

See, this is easy stuff.

On page 21,

I think all of us understand neighborhoods one through seven, but I think a better adding some what are the neighborhoods one through seven rather than just referencing them for folks to be able to understand where actually one through seven, where those neighborhoods are.

All right.

And land use and climate change, I thought,

And on page 28, I'm not sure how to word this, but I'm looking at multimodal transportation choices, and it mentions transit.

And I think it's really important to clarify, and I don't know what adjective to use, but

timely transit.

We can have transit and expect everybody to walk a mile, right?

But if we can somehow or another clarify timely transit, or maybe you all have a better adjective to go with that.

Reliable is another one.

Well, there you go.

Something like that, because we have transit now, but it is not timely.

It's not reliable.

And it's a little thing, but I think

I think that's it because picking up folks once an hour is not going to cut it.

You understand what I'm saying.

I'm almost on pace with Ann.

It was somewhere and I was looking for it and can't find a map that had the numbers for the neighborhood that I found very, very helpful.

That's a good point.

Excellent.

I will similarly try and keep brief by my peers.

Two pretty simple things and one that might be a little bit linear.

First, on page 16, I'm just going to highlight, you know, I think we've done a really, I know the staff has done several things about the graphics and legends, but I think we're in a generally related place with graphics and legends.

I like that the graphics and the legends have been there.

I appreciate seeing very few images that aren't from the county.

I would just raise that this first image is too low quality to be usable.

I think we probably need a vector of 10 graphics.

I don't know, for example, when it says above Area A and no one was able to fix that.

It's also not clear if it's even information that's not available in the next graphic.

So I would just raise that up as that it is not an appropriate

On page 17, another fairly minor thing, but in the discussions around the Scottsville, we say that we will end a link to the Scottsville comprehensive plan in the appendix, which is all well and good, but it contains within it a presumption, right?

This is going to be a static document.

You know, it's going to be PDF'd.

So will the Scottsville comprehensive plan with their own different update periodicities, it assumes that the link to that plan will stay live.

I don't know what the correct way to solve this is, but I would just raise up the concern that a link to something run by a different organization is in no way guaranteed to remain that.

I think a solution would be that we could

I think I might have discussed this previously, but I'm sure it's not lost on others here on the board and staff joining us.

additional plans, right, that occasionally, in fact, I feel like the context in which I most frequently hear small area plans invoked is when they contain, normally through oversight or omission, language that contradicts language in the comprehensive plan.

A classic example is some small area plans, you know, discuss a

I wonder if it might be appropriate to include language in here about how in the possibility of an image

I normally think of a contradiction that the subordinate plan is superior and supersedes subordinate plans, but others might say that a subordinate plan provides additional context or clarity and therefore is across the conference.

Go ahead and address that and say that that is a note that we're planning that we intend to include for our future land use map, but it would also be should be included here.

Excellent.

to what Supervisor McKeel said regarding the maps.

I mean, I do believe, as I looked at them, I think it's important to include major thoroughfares to 50, 29, some of the major ones so that if people look at this, they can basically tell, OK, where that location is.

Not all of them, but some of them.

And maybe it's important enough maybe to have a full page

Many times the more I read it, I actually, I'm going to say this out loud, but I actually like it.

And I think it's really good.

I mean, we're in the process now of tweaking.

But otherwise, I think staff has done an incredible job, frankly.

It's not easy.

Again, I also think you've done a great job and I'll feedback that wherever possible.

Imagine somebody reading this printed and anything below six point type.

I'm going to be juggling two pairs of glasses today already as I get more time

And I probably will bring up more details about some of the history as we look at the growth management because there are some statements there.

But page 23, and I should have made this comment.

I'm really comprehending what's going on here as a number of different numbers have changed dramatically.

I imagine Biscuit Run and other things have had significant impact on how you delineate percentages.

I would say this now, to maybe preface saying it again, there are cases where I just think that the actual number of acres or approximate number of acres is more meaningful.

I also look at this and say, well, you know, if we're going to do this process of delineating all of the different comp plans, can't we include this one?

Is that or is that somewhere else already that we lay out?

So to address that,

Oh, we kind of settled in to an expectation here.

I know there were some comments at the Planning Commission about ordering.

No, I don't want to get into too much.

We appreciate that, and one advantage we have is Mr. Wilkerson, who's our new employee, is a long time editor, writer, and he's spent his first couple of weeks coming through the plan and doing it again, looking for first-person voice, you know, getting to see a voice and catching errors and picking up some of the comments we've received from planning questions, but also heavily sort of

So when you see the final plan, don't be surprised to sort of see it reordered.

We take your comments and tweak what we did.

We had to be quick, let's turn around.

It's already rewritten.

That section moved up closer to the front.

The same content, just a different batting order of the content.

I think it's what the Planning Commission really wanted from us.

I guess on page seven, left hand column,

I'm wondering why we have to keep every time it seems like multiple times even though there is a there's not going to be a change to the boundary right now it keeps coming back even over and over again earlier chapter this chapter so I just pointing that out while boundary changes blah blah blah in the second paragraph to the end

The last paragraph of number two, development areas, and I have a suggestion about including unused commercial space and parking lots when we're considering the capacity of the development area.

This paragraph was similar to them, making sure that when we have to build that analysis, a big improvement in here than what's in here, that we're looking at the whole perspective of things that may not have been in the original Kinley-Horn analysis as far as they may have something on there, but it's going

For clarification, are you hoping that we would add in language from the

On page 8, what I was mentioning is that it came up all the way along, even a year ago, that we were not talking about all of the open parking lots, and so the parking lots, the things that are not doing anything, they were all excluded, and that was one assumption that one could use.

are better raised by many, many people throughout the process that it's needed to be valid.

It needed to incorporate all to get a true capacity.

We needed to have the unused commercial space and parking lots as well.

So that's basically the element of page eight.

Sure, sure.

I just want to make sure I understand.

So what you're saying

conceivably be used for commercial or residential.

Is that right?

Yes, exactly.

Okay, that's okay.

The oceans and oceans of parking that for an empty shopping mall, for example, could be selling out.

And do we need to specify where available and where empty because if a business is thriving, you don't want to consider their parking lot.

But if I agree with you, if you have these empty malls and they have a lot of

I don't think, I'm not suggesting that we go in parcel by parcel to determine who's thriving and who's not.

But if there are huge parking lots, then there is a potential that sometime in the next 20 to 40 years, something else will happen there other than, I mean, just looking at Barracks Road, for example, they now have all these interim buildings that were not there 10 years ago.

And so I expect there'll be many other properties where the price of the land is more valuable to go up on and put a garage on than it is to keep 500 parking spaces.

Well, just a word of caution and then yet sort of a word of reassurance, if you will.

I think we sort of get away from really what it's supposed to be doing.

It's a tool that globally looks at the development area and tries not on a parcel by parcel.

It's supposed to be, it definitely takes in parcels, there's no doubt about it, but it's

It's intent is not to be granular to say, oh, hey, Mr. Jones's parcel is going to be redeveloped, Mr. Smith's is not.

But when it's listed as an exclusion, that's what I'm pushing back on.

Okay, so page 11 is the first place where the boundaries come up.

and many people have suggested in addition to me that this would be perhaps better off as a separate document rather than because it's not as well developed as the rest of the text is that we've been used to working with that it would be better to have this as a separate document and give it a chance to mature and have us

and rather than having something vague and sort of with, I mean some of the comments were, you know, the terminology's weird and says one thing in one paragraph and not in the next.

I didn't go through it to that detail.

But one solution is to give this more time to be baked properly.

And certainly another comment was to just flip those first two paragraphs because one is the general introduction and the second is an action.

On page 12, criteria for removing underperforming areas, that's relating to your question.

This is the first time it's coming up, so I will speak about that now.

In the old draft, what I had written down for myself in the notes was, if an area is already developed with water and sewer, it should not be considered first water.

And that was the basis when people brought up the village of Rivanna.

It's already got its amenities, so that is not a valid

This is another situation where this topic needs to grow and evolve and be considered deliberately not rushed and thrown into the comp plan with the level of confusion that I think it generates in its current state.

So we have draft criteria where a lot of things that raise a lot of anxiety in the public.

and some other notes written down, but I think that these two, page 11 and page 12, would really benefit from being a separate section, either work to be done in the beginning of the appendix or something so that it's not considered to be as well completed as all of the other work that's been worked so hard on all this time.

And the other general comment is when land has constraints,

It should affect its use, not changing the rules to make those constraints go away or getting other land from someplace else to take the place of those constraints.

So that's just a philosophical approach so that we're not just using this as one way to basically expand the growth area without benefit.

So that's my comments on those two pages.

This is more criteria.

Things that did not get incorporated in the first round.

The first priority, transportation.

Have existing development areas caught up in needed services?

Sidewalks, parks, and transit.

As far as that criteria, before one expands and expands the geography in which you're going to provide services, have you already taken care of the geography you already have?

That's important.

Public water and sewer.

This seems to indicate we'll just keep spreading on and on and on with those services.

There's already a $200 million CIP in Rivanna for the next 20 years.

The ratepayers have to incorporate into their fees in order to pay for the work that was postponed from 2000 on.

And now we're having to do it.

It would have cost a whole lot less if we'd done it at the right moment before 2010, but that didn't happen.

I just wanted to provide a little extra reality that we shouldn't be too glib about expanding water and sewer service because it is a great cost to the ratepayers.

Page 14

I would encourage this section in the bullets to be much more strident because in areas where we are a little bit more nebulous about our goals, we have compatibility issues around Beaver Creek where there's residential.

People do not follow the rules that the county staff has laid out, the CBD has laid out, saying you cannot scarify whether we whip all the way down to the water's edge.

They do it all the time.

So if a potential area is in a water supply watershed, that needs to be an out.

Well, I'm just saying if we're still talking about criteria and not postponing that chapter till later, I'm just putting all these things in while I have a chance.

Page 14 in the middle of the page.

Because it's hard to dance around.

If it is, it's a problem.

And it shouldn't be allowed to then have a whole lot of things happen to it, impervious services, erosion, et cetera, when we know what's going to happen.

Excuse me, Supervisor Malle.

We should probably still consider whether the potential area is in the water supply watershed, but you're saying if it is, do not allow it.

That should not be something that goes to step two.

OK, here we are.

On page four, the first paragraph, I agree with what you say here, but I think there's some redundancy.

I remember our consultant recently saying that we had a lot of redundancy in our documents, between our documents, right?

And so it looked like to me that where you have forestry and natural environment in the rural area,

I think the rest of that paragraph is redundant.

That's all I'm saying.

Think about that.

It's an atom absolute.

I'm just saying that I'm trying to shorten this and make sure we're not being redundant in our discussions.

Down in the last paragraph, high quality of life to entice current and future community members to live in the development area, period.

Instead of the rural area, I think it sounds like we're really trying to direct people where they're going.

And maybe that is what we're really trying to do.

But I find that we want to entice them to live in the development area, period.

I just take out the rural area.

Let's see.

On page six.

Second paragraph, it talks about the 1970s, which I lived through here.

I'm not sure that everybody did, but I did.

And I can say that the, so when we say possibly due to concerns about annexation, as well as previously abundant supply of

I'm not sure, when we say, we don't have any proof of that, I just take that on.

I don't think that adds anything to the discussion.

We don't have any proof about the, certainly there was chatter about annexation, but I think I just, it works just as well without that.

Because if I had to prove that, I'm not sure I could.

All right, page seven.

When we're talking about development and the development areas, meaning the objectives,

I would look at including, there's nothing that captures transit here.

And I think transit is really important.

Walkability, bikeability, sidewalks, greenways, shared use paths, but we don't have anything about transit there.

I just slip transit in somehow or another.

And I'll leave that to you all to work your magic, right?

But you know me, I'm trying to get transit in everywhere I can.

Page 8.

For an example, 22 land use build out analysis.

I would add something very simple there.

About 58% of the maximum number of units recommended were not building out.

I would add something similar, something simple about consequences.

for clarity, right?

So that when people are reading it, they say, oh, well, we've only been approving at 58%.

Right, on page eight, right here.

And that's on us.

Yeah, and I was absolutely, but I was just going to let you work your magic about that language.

Page nine.

It says, and I'm looking at the one, two, I guess the second paragraph down, the cost to redevelop parcels is missing.

It seems like to me, because the analysis doesn't take into consideration the cost to develop the parcel, is what I was thinking about.

And we're dealing with that all the time, right?

So I might just add, again, work your magic and work that into the discussion there.

And then, let's see, on page 10, on the first paragraph under 6, I would change can to will.

Limiting the supply of available housing will drive up the cost.

It's not can, it is will.

I'm being a lawyer now, Andy.

Those words of can and will and should and won't and all that, but I think it will drive up.

And going down the next paragraph, increasing demand for non-residential space will lead to costs rising.

because it seems like to me that's what we know.

I mean, that's fact.

Page 11 and 12, Ann was talking about removing these and moving them.

I would not agree with that.

I think they're in a fine place where they are.

And page 15, I like the language around the public water and sewer, so I would not, as Ann was suggesting, change that.

I would not push back on that.

if a potential water area is in the water supply watershed now on page 14.

I think Ann was saying that she wants that to be an absolute and I would not do that.

And I think the example that we talked about recently in Woolen Hills would be an example.

We had absolute multiple experts tell us that we could do that.

Now, the fact is we chose not to.

And maybe I'm convoluted something here, but I'm just simply saying that I like the language here and I wouldn't change it.

And I guess that's it.

Trying to be brief again.

Yes, thank you.

I will also try and be brief.

I promise the other comments will be more substantive.

So let's cut to, so I want to practice most of these comments by saying I actually broadly quite like where we've arrived at here.

I think it's representative

and I hope my peers share that.

Let's turn to page 11 and kind of get to the meat of where I think the interest is here.

I want to begin by saying, you know, Ann brought this up, but you know, the first paragraph there, it's pretty kneeling out, perhaps because it was representing this board's

But it is not clear as a reader where we're going with this, and I think it's correctly observed that the next paragraph actually does begin by actually introducing you to the facts of the case, right?

Well I have to hear such a resembling agreement.

So I heard some concern that the criteria for removing underperforming areas and adding new areas that we are maybe delving further than we should in the competition.

because otherwise, it feels too consequential and too substantive.

This is what a comprehensive plan is about.

I don't think if we did not include this, it would seem to me inappropriate to have such considerations during the lifespan of this comprehensive plan if we did want to entertain a conversation about removal or reallocation of development values and development rights.

I would feel like we could not if we did not approve this because it is such a consequential help and it would run contradictory to the growth management plan if the growth management plan stopped at page 10.

So I personally think this needs to be in here even while recognizing, I think as it does quite clearly, that this is kind of a preliminary draft of what the core kind of evaluating criteria should be.

I do think these are the right evaluative criteria

and I'm not sure that it's appropriate.

I also, you know, I do, moving to page 14, I am

I'm sympathetic and interested in Ann's suggestion to add that as a bright line but I think my concern would be I don't know how we quantify or depict what is and is not a watershed area and I don't have that right to know just how much clarity or granularity we would have with such a thing

to know whether or not I think that would be an appropriate pipeline, if that makes sense to you.

I just, is a water supply watershed?

Is that a massive paintbrush?

I do agree, though, that this whole section demands further serious thought.

I think we will engage in further serious thought, especially if we're seriously contemplating the removal and reallocation of acreage in frankly subsequent conversations on actually

And I also do agree with trying to make the contention that the pragmatic elements of the growth management policy can be too easily overlooked and not discussed.

Things like costs, things like the necessity to protect the

protect our own watershed.

And this is not me giving this as feedback, but like a very simple example, we have the caption on page four, which reads, you don't have to change the page.

If the growth management policy directs density in the development area to protect the character of the growth area, I think that's probably kind of the popular understanding of what our growth

and overlooks the, and character feels effective, it feels steerable, aesthetic.

And I think that overlooks the actual pragmatic reasons we have a growth control plan to control the expansion of costs, of direct costs, to be able to capital improvement for a long time to protect and re-manage electrification by one or so.

Yes, I'd like to ask for a point of clarification with Supervisor Pruitt.

I don't think anyone was talking about it being taken out or left in.

I believe Supervisor Mallek suggested it remain in but be a right line.

rather than a criteria.

So if it meets any component of that, it would automatically not be eligible.

All right, on page six, on the right-hand side, the last paragraph in the middle, it says food access slash community gardens.

And elsewhere in the document, it says food access comma community garden.

So I suggest that we take out the slash and replace it with a comma, which is better and grammatically correct.

I do agree with, I think we,

The second paragraph on the left-hand side, we took out that part, which I don't disagree with.

Anything where we refer to, I mean, back in the 70s, that would be, what, two generations ago for some people?

Be careful.

My generation is very much alive.

No, no, I'm not saying we're not alive.

As we go through this I don't know how much we have to refer to or maybe even have a link to like past history because things are, my point is things are changing so fast nowadays even from you know 20 to 25 in five years things have changed a lot and you can't a lot of people it's like well maybe they should care but a lot of people don't care they want to know what's

Look at that wire where you can remove it if it doesn't flow.

On page 7, Supervisor McKeel keeps bringing up transit, which I'm very much in favor of.

But I do know we don't have a lot of the population, so I guess leave it in because of the fact that we want more transit.

Basically, it's a reality check.

Are we going to be able to deliver on this transit?

That's what I worry about.

I don't want someone reading it and saying, well, we don't have this, this, and this, when actually it's going to be a long process to get there.

Maybe MicroCat helps.

Hopefully, we will have a robust

Well, you mentioned transit a couple times, and I just... I'm just curious.

Yeah, yeah, no, no, no, I just don't want people to have an expectation that tomorrow we're going to have a lot of transit, but I'm not against

We're in expectation of miles of sidewalks, greenways, or shared use paths.

Well, that too.

I'm just saying.

That may not happen tomorrow.

Yeah, yeah, that may not happen tomorrow.

Okay, as long as, you know, okay.

That's fine.

I agree with on page 9, 5, taking out shortening it.

and page 10.

So I'm going to, I will tell you when this issue came up about swapping land development versus rural, I think it was brought up by Supervisor Pruitt and others seem to like it.

At first I was against that, I was a hard

As I understand it more, because we do have guardrails.

We have guardrails.

We're not swapping forest all land, farming, agricultural land.

We're not swapping that out.

We're swapping areas in the rural area that wouldn't be appropriate for housing.

With development land, you know, and areas, I think Ned, Supervisor Gallaway brought it up,

so because of that I'm not seeing a problem with doing some swaps that make sense that would for me that would be what makes sense in this area otherwise we're just having frankly vacant land

because of a label.

So we have unused rural, we have unused development land, whereas in reality if we swap that and keep in the same basic percentage, we could make use of that land.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

page 13 public water and sewer I agree with that I like that page 14 I agree that it should be left in there also because as we as we lose

We had a number of acres, this is the very first paragraph on page 6, the very end of it says, starting with 48,000 acres in the development area in 1971 to 23,800 today, makes it sound as if we're slowly chipping away at the development area.

That little data point needs to be in here so that somebody doesn't look at this and say, oh, it's been gradually eroding.

It was a major thing in 1980.

So a question before I go into other comments.

What is the plan?

There are numerous references in here to 2022 and references to the 58%.

No, it's 70.

There are issues with that.

And I would love to see some of that nuance better reflected in here than just throwing this out.

We need to wrestle that.

Oh, the way we intended to address all that was to go ahead and update any references to the 2022 build-out analysis with current updated information that came out of the 2025 build-out analysis.

Sure, and I understood that.

I just wanted to know, between now and October 15th,

I appreciate the comment about recognizing generally without parcel by parcel the capacity for redevelopment represented by oversized parking lots.

and also on page 9, the first paragraph, it talks about 7% of the land, 0.3% of the land.

And again, I think it'd be nice to have actual acreage or square miles or something, the numbers we're talking about.

With respect to, I'm not going to disagree with Supervisor McKeel's comment about will or can driving up the cost locally, but I do note that in the plan

The opposite is not necessarily true.

One thing I want to say is that are the numbers helpful?

Or are they creating more of a mess that then you have to deal with than is being a complainant and a guide?

This is what I think we all want to avoid is anything that is written that seems to slam in one direction as far as making it easier to expand or easier not to expand.

The 58, based upon the 6 to 34 units I talked about at the last meeting that still has no basis, is all a number that doesn't really help us much.

So please think about that issue going forward.

and everybody should be considered.

Well, then we go on to all the rest of the discussion, which is a lot of criteria for deciding how and when this should happen.

I do think that the criteria for removing underperforming areas from the development area, the idea of the swap, if you will, I understand why it's

Find this page 12 a little bit vague.

As a policy.

As a policy.

That's different from 1314 which you're talking about adding.

I do want to make the note, and this is where I'll make it, there already were Developmental Utilization Review 1 through 6

And so when we get to this page 13, I even see in here

If you read the impacts and standards to assess, they're not all just suggestive of, oh, let's add land to the development area.

A lot of them are saying, again, these are standards based on how well we're utilizing the development area.

So I would suggest changing the heading of page 13 to, instead of criteria for adding land, something like criteria for assessing the adequacy of land in the development

That way we're not basically saying, as we read this, it's all about adding.

Another point of consensus.

Supervisor Andrews, could you repeat the... Where it says criteria for adding, I would say criteria for assessing the adequacy of land in the development areas.

Because it still leaves flexibility.

Yeah, and it's not saying we're not, it's just saying this is what we're using.

They would tell you they don't have to, because we don't have to.

But I'm not trying to rush you.

And I'm not sure, and the reason I didn't bring this up, I wasn't sure whether to bring it up this point or to bring it up under the development area piece, but

And I believe, number one, we have never voted to expand the development area.

Period.

The community seems to think we have, but we have not.

Having said that, we have talked about swapping land in the development, between the rural and development area for some appropriate pieces that, as Bea said, will never be developed.

Having said that, I think something that would be helpful is when we talk about capacity analysis,

Could we just have a map of the developable area in the development area?

Could we have a map of the parcels or the land that is possibly developable?

Could we do that?

Wait, let me have this.

I know that members of our community are very interested in such a map as well.

Here's the tricky part to this, and there was some discussion, not at this most recent Planning Commission, but golly,

Maybe months ago now, when we were talking about naming names on which parcels even might be swappable.

There was some real concern that we didn't want government to put our thumb on the scale on we like this parcel versus that parcel because it may wind up doing market things.

And so we've resisted that for that reason.

Now, certainly, if you all direct us to do that, we can build that and do it.

But I think we're very

We've been very cautious about not doing that for a purpose, to just hold that in abeyance.

The criteria are all in here.

So if you have a parcel that's more than two acres and the land value is more than the value of the improvements, you kind of know that you're probably one of the ones we chose.

Yeah.

Piggybacking on that, I think we have a number of parcels that would be developable, privately owned, and we don't know if the person wants to sell or not.

We also have a number of developments that have been proposed that never get developed.

The criteria is very hard to establish what that actually means.

There's so many variables that include owner, condition of the property, location, all the different things.

And I accept that answer and that makes perfect sense.

The cost to redevelop question is, I'm guessing, always more expensive than green people.

But we're never going to get to redevelop at all if we're continually offering a less expensive alternative.

I just want to throw that out there because that was mentioned as something that should have been meant on page nine.

Regarding the map on a watershed, watersheds are delineated by USDA and have been for hundreds of years in very, very clear maps.

From height of land to height of land is what a watershed is.

So we would have no trouble at all establishing

Landers have been doing that ever since RWSA was founded.

And the other, in addition to the thumb on the scale, the constraints on a parcel, staff would take years to figure that out.

I mean, the burden of doing that is worse than development rights.

And that is a terribly burdensome thing for people.

Yes, it is.

Well, I was just wondering how we would like to tackle this.

I think we can just go piece by piece.

I feel like we've gotten consensus on most things.

I was not suggesting throwing it out, but perhaps work to come in the appendix or whatever.

Inclusion in the body to me means we really nailed this down and we want our citizens to trust what they read.

So that's why I was thinking it needed to be given more time to make.

I'm quite taken with the suggestion to change the title, which I think helps a lot.

So if I fail to get it moved to the appendix or work to do or whatever, then that is at least helpful.

So I don't think it needs to be moved.

So I'm hearing that the title on the top of page 13 will change to criteria for assessing the adequacy of land in the development areas.

And that it stays.

Then the other thing I just want to get a little bit more

We were talking about the potential area is in a water supply watershed.

I'm hearing that you all like that criteria being there.

I'm hearing that Supervisor Malek would like for that to be, if it is in a water supply watershed, you would like that parcel removed from consideration for

and I'm seeing shaking heads on two of the four in the room.

I'm not confident that I fully see where the limits are going to be.

You and I have well water.

It's the rest of these folks who haven't.

Protecting the drinking water is what rural people have been trying to do for years.

And I want to go on record saying I put public water and sewer everywhere because that's how we're going to protect our groundwater.

everyone being on public water and sewer.

And you don't have failing septic tanks and such.

I would agree with that.

I look forward to you finding that billion dollars.

We understand that's the problem.

But that is the way you protect the water.

I did work to be prepared, it just doesn't feel like it now that I'm trying to do it.

I'm amazed if you don't like this chapter.

Okay, I thought we spent a lot of time on it.

We spent a lot of time on it.

OK, let's see.

I have a little more organized here.

Page 11, no residential.

Please look for ways to incorporate reduction in the minimum lot size.

For cottage colonies to succeed, we've had two failed ones in Crozet because the minimum lot size was too big to work for people to be able to have very small houses with common land and a small parcel that they could own and therefore have equity on as opposed to a rental.

Oh, page 13, same thing, middle residential.

This page 13 focuses on the housing unit size and please add the focus on the minimum block size to go along with it for tiny houses of permanent income restricted purchasers.

And as the Crozet Master Plan already incorporates middle residential

you're expecting that will go to all the other areas as well.

I'm not recognizable as a Navy Yard.

I said, I have much right here.

Well, I'm sorry.

I will send it when I find it to you, but I think I've already clarified that it will not have the visualization that you questioned that I had to use now. 2.6.

It seems to assume that everything has been finished.

My suggestion would be, well, we just haven't resolved it.

I'm still lobbying for special permits in the development areas and locations for industrial uses.

Excuse me, Supervisor Mallek.

So I understand what you're saying, and we were trying to figure out timing on some of these things because we weren't sure when those were all going to come together.

So relative to data centers, are you thinking we should say something about consider allowing data centers in the development area kind of period?

We know that there's more deliberation to come and this sort of gets

You guys are in the middle of a policy discussion on it.

You're going to decide it in the next year, and this is a 20-year plan.

Thank you and thank you to the last one in this page 44.1 I'm so grateful that we now have appropriate spacing of trees because this is something for 15 years we've been trying to fix because when left up to the developers they put in fewer big trees that are then way too big for the spot and the only person making money is Roger Weber out there trimming old trail trees every single year to get them all back

and the Groves, 4.4 Protect clusters or groves of healthy native canopy trees, especially in the buffers.

This is going to take a real determination of enforcement and more draconian penalty.

for enforcement because currently people just go oops and smash them all down with a bulldozer and there's really no consequence because they're putting back a teeny little thing like this and it doesn't do any good.

So stop over-lung breaking, removal of grooves, and demolition forgiveness.

So those are just my notes on that.

Ann jumped so far back into the document now I'm trying to find the very beginning.

It's the longest chapter we've had.

It's all good.

That's right.

This is really... And I feel like some of these are little nitpicks, but anyway.

On page three, activity centers which are explained later in this document.

Could you say where later?

It says, activity centers which are explained later in this document.

Let's tell them where.

You can say the section name.

Yeah, that'd be great.

I said this is hip-hacking, so anyway.

No, that's good.

And it says, walkable activity centers.

And in my comment here with see previous page, I think I'm trying to make sure that people that read this know where to go to define things.

I'm on page four now.

OK.

Sorry.

That's OK.

And the other nitpicky thing is we talk a lot about one university where they studied and were citing 23 study about Rutgers University.

I think we need to cite it properly.

Every time we mention it, it needs to be cited.

If we're going to mention one study, then it needs to be cited.

Because you're identifying the university and their study, so let's cite it.

and I won't have to mention that every time I go through because I started circling them when it was on.

All right.

Let's see.

I'm trying to figure out why on page six I made a note, schools follow housing.

Let me think about why I said that in my notes.

Because you don't get housing first.

I mean, you don't get schools first, do you?

Yeah, so I don't know why I made that note on this page.

It's like you have the developments first, and then you have transit.

They always say, oh, you can't put any development there because there's no transit.

Well, excuse me.

There's no transit because there's no development.

So I'll go along with that.

But page seven, I wasn't sure where these errors were going to.

Yeah, just straighten that up a little bit.

I think that could be a little confusing.

I said these were deadly things, right?

I'm glad, I didn't even notice that.

And I agreed with Ann bringing up where it says on page 11, middle residential, I said our county houses permit it.

because I've actually had people in the community say to me, how dare you put that development behind my house.

I rent hotel rooms larger than those parcels.

So we need to make sure that small parcels are okay, right, and kind of houses are okay, regardless of the size of people's hotel rooms that they rent.

And I'm getting snippy, but I've actually had people in the community say that to me.

Okay, let's see.

Tim, just going through, yeah.

I think it's important because we need to be in this infill.

It's sort of what we need with infill.

And let's see.

In 2015, Transit Connections should be added.

We encourage Transit Connections, right?

For Office of Research and Development, it was left out under the description.

I just think if we could say we encourage Transit Connections as well, something like that.

Can we get bus covers?

There you go.

I think that was just me.

Oh, again, on 27th site Rutgers.

I'll just keep splitting through this a little bit.

I think I'm close to being through.

I don't really know what to do with this because on page 38 it talks about coordinating with VDOT for approval of urban street standards in Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation.

I have a meeting scheduled right now with DRPT because they have changed their standards on art on roadways.

in certain intersections because it slows down traffic and they see it as a... So I'm not expecting you to change this.

I'm just using this as an opportunity to say that art, as far as DRPT is concerned, and certainly perhaps VDOT as well, they're changing what they used to say, oh, you can't put any art here.

You can't do this.

Those criteria are changing.

Yes, I know.

And I have an area that I'd like to go after, and that's a whole other discussion, which we're not going to go down into now.

And I know what you're right on, Louise, that the transportation chapter, this was a major thing they're trying to work through, this multi-modal plan.

We do it the way that the TRPT regulations are, and then it opens the door to a whole lot of urban

It allows us for more urban streets and that's why that's a key thing for us to have in this thing.

I appreciate what you're talking about.

Yeah, because in our urban areas we could use that to slow down traffic right without, anyway, this is what it is.

Okay.

39, let's see.

On 2.6 with Ann was talking about data centers.

I have no problem with taking that out.

What I really liked was though, just for the future, the stress of using performance standards.

I want to go on record for saying that because we talk about data centers.

We're not talking about willy-nilly letting them do whatever they want.

We had performance standards.

Well, no, I'm happy because we're in the middle of these discussions.

I just wanted to make a statement that performance standards make a big difference.

And I actually was thrilled, like Ann, to see all of the references on page 42 trees, tree coverage.

Excellent.

I would support the idea of striking 2.6, the action of 2.6, that's the data subject related one.

And I think I mentioned this before, but as a general philosophy, I think we should be using our current plan if we do it.

Long Range Visioning, and I don't see it as always appropriate to use it as a price to, and I understand how this is a seductive thing, but like it's not a price to put things that we're already doing so we really can take credit for having accomplished them, which I see a bit with 2.6, but additionally I would raise 4.6 which I

I've been a champion for us joining the Biophone Cities Network.

It is also, frankly, like a very single principle thing for us to do.

It is not a substantive, it is not the kind of thing that in 15 years we are going to look and say, ah yes, the grandeur of Albemarle, we join the Biophone Cities Network.

We bet it could, but I just,

It is something we're already doing.

I expect to hop on a consent agenda any day now.

And I don't know that that is something that we need to try in a comprehensive plan that might delay the symptom.

So, Supervisor Pruitt, for clarification, I think I'm hearing we want to remove 4.6 and I think there may be consensus in the room if you are saying that.

Great.

Great.

We're going to join the Bio, I assume we're going to join the Bio.

The city's network is a thing that I think will probably happen in the next year regardless of whatever our decision point is.

It's got to be in the next year.

What I mentioned was two projects which failed to go forward because the lot size minimum of the county regs was too big.

Okay, that's why I was asking to have consideration of smaller minimum lot sizes.

So that those kinds of things, because in finance the banks all have, you can only have X percentage of the value being the land, and if the lot's too big, then that's possibly going to happen.

So I misunderstood that because I know in my area it's been very successful but I do agree with the smaller lot size and tiny homes because I think we need to really look to address

Oh yeah, I just wanted to mention on page 28, right hand side, first slide,

To overcome these issues, the AC44 plan proposes only 22 activity centers as opposed to, what, 957?

But no, that's just teasing.

But I mean, kudos for reducing that as much as you did.

On the left-hand side, the second sentence, the purpose of a center is to concentrate the provision

I keep hearing from constituents about wanting to put a, well frankly, they want another bridge from the Pantops Shopping Center into Charlottesville.

I mean, that'll probably be done probably in the year 35, 35.

I'll be pushing up Davis.

Yeah, yeah.

None of us will be here.

But they want a pedestrian and

bicycle.

There are sidewalks on both sides of Freebridge going across.

So I'm not getting it, because there's a sidewalk that now is a wide sidewalk.

Is it a boulevard?

No.

But there's a sidewalk on each side.

It came to me, I'm wondering whether or not we could work with VDOT when they redo from broken road down to 20, if there's any way to maybe

narrow the lanes a little bit and add a wider sidewalk which would make it more convenient for bicycle and pet and then they then I wouldn't hear the comments I hear but I mean I'm just I don't know if that's possible and that doesn't need to be in the plan.

That was an opportunity to bring it up.

That was an opportunity to bring it up.

An opportunity to bring it up.

I cannot resist, exactly.

Mysteries and slip lanes do not make sense.

And I agree with removing 2.6 and 4.6.

Okay.

I'll jump to page four just to note that we have no

Okay, the future land use map, I would be remiss if I just mention that there are going to be requests to effect changes

discussion of the procedure for any consideration just to come forward from an owner developer or whether through us or what.

I'm not suggesting to make any right at this moment just to ask the question about how that might be accomplished.

Do you want an answer right now?

Well, there have been procedures that were laid out.

I wanted to know whether there was anything you particularly saw from them that

Yeah, that was one of the questions we talked about, the map that was here.

Hard to read.

OK, this isn't what I thought then.

What's the next?

OK, that's 13.

12 was in the earlier sections.

OK, I'm good.

Sorry.

We are taking our time and getting through this.

We'll use up our whole lot of time that we need to break.

As someone who does raise local food and sell locally, I'm going to just push back again.

There seems to be this, agricultural products depends on the availability of local distribution facilities.

It really, in my opinion, does not.

It's assisted by, for sure, but to say that all of a sudden we have to

Bill, all sorts of stuff.

Page seven, page seven, second on the left side, about six lines down from recommended supporting.

Thank you.

So, we have had the food hub, which ended up going belly up.

I don't know why.

But anyway, so aggregation is something that has been helpful, and so the

Distribution and aggregation, it depends on is what troubles me because I don't think it's accurate.

Many farmers sell directly, others go to Augusta, Rockingham, Dayton Produce, where there's all these established things already.

And you already put in the aggregation, so I thank you for that.

I mentioned this earlier in the work sessions when we talked about the study at UNC.

The study at UNC was done in 2010 and again in 2015 and it is settled.

It already has agricultural support industries there in that blue area and so everything in the white area south of the blue area is directly to the drinking water.

It's a slope like this.

It's not flat, so that cannot be built on.

I'm happy to have it come out, but also I'm happy that what you just said, we don't need that either.

Because people are going to bring things forward and we don't need to do a long, long, long, long thing to say, you know, go over here.

Supervisor Mallek, I understand you taking it out, but the second part of what Ms.

Florida said, what is your reaction?

I didn't get that.

I don't know that it's necessary to have anything other than let the economic development thing stand on its own.

I mean, in the rural area, we don't have to have it.

We have a master plan.

We have activities that are there right now.

If it pleases the board, I'm fine with that because I know you've adopted the economic development plan as it is.

When this whole thing came forward, staff was trying to

bring forward the notion that something could happen at those interchanges, but we've had pushback and feedback on Yancey being not necessary.

I think we basically kept talking about it because we have a fair amount of existing stale zoning out there.

And maybe moreover, back on page seven, where it talks a lot in there about these kind of supporting, we were just talking about with Mallek's discussion, I'll give a change of verbs there.

I mean, there was a wonderful thing eight or nine years ago.

There was a yogurt people who were interested in the high ground to the south of Yancey.

And once they did the air quality thing there, they realized they couldn't do it because of the dust and the air from the lumber yard.

Now, since Patrick has taken over, the lumber yard has just taken off.

And so it is very successful.

So they seem to be very secure in their operation, considering also their massive investment that they've done in the last 10 years.

And I'm sorry that the yogurt people couldn't come, but something else may come along that will be true agricultural in that area there that would be more compatible with the land.

So thank you.

Brad, I will go on now.

Can I make a comment, since it's all the same?

I don't think that's going to affect us, but if we can make it so that we follow the economic development plan and see what parcels, what pieces of land, what people come to us asking for.

Yeah, I think so.

We'll go around and I do think this topic should be part of your comments.

Very good.

So next I'm on page nine.

2.1, a great improvement, but somewhere in there was mentioned that the minimum lot size was five acres from the 1980s.

So it's two acres, not five acres somehow.

So I'll just leave that thought at somewhere when someone finds it they can improve.

Oh.

Okay, transfer of development rights.

Painful discussion in 2008, 2009, and 2010.

We never got anywhere.

Everybody spent years and dozens, hundreds of hours of staff time on this.

Other counties have maybe done something.

Everybody waited for the state, and I think Stafford adapted something.

But it's not ready for prime time at all to be in here.

I really strongly suggest that this

that have been put in the future work category.

The absolute problem is receiving areas would be in the rural area.

They cannot be.

It has to be rural area transferred to development area, not rural area to rural area.

I'm also very happy to have 2.5 put into the appendix of future work.

Thank you.

So let's see what that means.

Now.

All right.

Page 11.

Revise regulations for special events when they are only possible and registered to destroy properties.

Where are you?

4.5, page 11.

So because, I mean, the special events one that probably we all remember was back in the 90s.

Panorama Farm came over.

They were the first ones.

They wanted to have the old barn for high school reunions and also then later on bicycles and stuff like that.

But they did a full special permit, met all the criteria for the special permit, was approved, blah, blah, blah.

So I don't know what this means.

It seems like the only perhaps should apply to when you have a public road direct access because you may remember Wavertree Hall a few years ago that was a neighborhood HOA street they were trying to dump all that traffic onto and that was the non-starter there so that may have been the goal but anyway I'm just putting that in the needs work category or takeout

In the end of the first paragraph, the adaptive reuse is not feasible.

That is just a handover to demolition because somebody who wants to tear something down is always going to say, oh, it's going to cost me $0.25 to fix it, and so I'm not going to tear it down instead.

And so I would prefer that that last sentence go out and have the focus be on adaptive reuse, restoration, whatever.

I mean, we have plenty of successes.

No one can convince me that this is not possible.

With that, are you thinking that, for example, if there was a 1,000 square foot old country store and it could be adapted into a wine tasting room, for example, but they wanted more than 1,000 square feet, would

Could they reuse the 1,000 and then add more to it?

Would that be okay in light of this?

Is that what you're thinking, or are you thinking you just don't want them to bulldoze the initial 1,000?

I would know that Dave Wyatt told me that they wanted to add a new cooler on the back of the oldest family-owned country store in the United States, and they were not allowed to because

and I think that's where we were trying to get- That I misunderstood in which case, but please clarify because a lot of other people read the same thing that I did when you were jumping up and down.

If you are not interpreting the way we had hoped it would be interpreted, we need to fix it.

In the third paragraph, I wrote in the margin, where did this come from?

When you talk about when proposed use is a restaurant?

I mean, I'm channeling Joan McDowell here, and some of you in the room will remember her.

We don't have restaurants in the rural area, because if you allow them, you will get a Bucky's.

And you will not be able to stop a Bucky's, because you have allowed

somebody else to have a little tiny restaurant on Friday nights.

So, that is a great concern.

I mean, Bucky's are tearing people's, tearing counties apart over in Buckingham and James City County.

I didn't know what Bucky was, I'm sorry.

It's like bigger than a football field, truck stop, you know, Cracker Barrel, Squire BQ, all this, tens of thousands of cars a day.

The one, two, and three, I guess, go with the restaurant.

And certainly only in existing buildings, period.

Otherwise, we're going to, I mean.

One thing that I've heard,

What everyone talks about is beyond just in an existing building, it's adding as an accessory use to an existing building.

So for example, if you have a wine tasting room and you have a small prep kitchen for snack foods or finger foods that we allow in wineries,

You may need to add a grill or something like that if you wanted to do hamburgers or something along those lines, which would add to the existing facility, but that would be an accessory use to the existing use that's already in that building.

That's where we were trying to go, but we don't have any accessory use or secondary use or something like that.

So described that way, I mean I know that we have at least two that have just been operating and nobody stops them but so that and others who have just said I'm following the rules I'm not going to do that.

But the Carriage House at King has a full commercial kitchen that's used by caterers so it's not that they're being precluded from doing anything with proper

VDH approval.

I mean, people just don't want to do the triple sinks, et cetera, et cetera, that you have to do to have a licensed kitchen.

So a little extra food.

In Little Washington is one thing, but some monstrous

And that was truly an extreme example trying to get people's attention.

But what I do know from a whole series of county attorneys over many, many decades is you can't pick and choose.

If you have a rule allowing something, you can't say, you can have yours, but you can't because they will run you to the courthouse so fast.

With the ability to look into it.

We do something similar

The convenience stores allowed in the development areas and commercially zoned property the country store isn't so it's a similar kind of differentiation that we would make because there may be maybe it's not a winery maybe it's in a state that has equine.

If you have one of the old mansions, let's say, what's on up on Round Top, right?

Not that that one would ever have the traffic capability for that, but the old 15 room mansion to make that viable, to be able to keep the estate.

That's a can of worms the size of Montana that you just described because we've had things come up over the last few miles that have been exactly that situation that sent everybody around them into complete turmoil because it was just buying an old historic property to then be able to turn it into something completely different than what it was.

I just had a text from somebody that said they're really having trouble hearing us for the people that are listening and we've had problems with that in this room.

Thank you for the reminder.

Page 12 7.3, another case of spending three years with Gloria Fritz.

not getting any sleep trying to figure out something where across the board we could deal with this commercial steel zoning and I would beg everybody to go back to just case by case and take this out.

because when there's an interest in a particular landowner coming forward and doing something, they can do a CMA or they can do a special permit application just like everybody else.

We don't need to try to waste your staff time figuring out something that's going to work for all 19 properties when the 19 properties are completely different from each other.

And that was the problem that we had back then.

OK, 7.5, we've already wiped that out, so that's good.

And I will take away my dancing hat and put that in there.

All right, let me see here.

I don't think I have very much in this one.

On page four, it says,

Local agriculture has remained relatively stable.

So relatively stable.

to talk to that issue.

So, per the 2022 U.S.

Department of Agricultural Consensus, from 17 to 22, the number of farms in Albemarle County decreased by 5% and the amount of acres in farming decreased by 8%.

I'm just saying that that's really not stable and that is data that we know exists so I would suggest using rather than relatively stable I would add the data I mean I think that's truth in Africasm we shouldn't be saying it's relatively stable when we've lost 5% and 8% but you can check it check those numbers I'm not saying believe me right off the top of my head but that's the change I would make there

And I think that's all I had on that page.

And then, let me just see.

OK, I'm moving.

So this is good.

So we're going to take out page 8.

So we've agreed with that.

So that's good.

And I agree with that.

So Ann's 2.5, I don't disagree with her on that.

She's talking about the transfer of development rights.

Yeah, I'm agreeing with that one.

And I had the same note on 4.5.

Do we really want special events only in?

So we've already dealt with that one.

Just make sure we're here.

And

7.5 is gone.

Yes.

So I'll begin by saying let's dive into the rural area interchange here.

So I guess I take some caution with the idea of just completely deleting

the criteria for the action that we have about it and page 8 along with it and saying that we're referring to the economic development plan and for the uses that are identified in there because then we would still find ourselves in a position where when those people bring forward those

I mean, correct me if I'm misunderstanding this, but I would still say when that application comes forward and it gets marked as either staff does not recommend because it does not incorporate the comprehensive plan because if we are not incorporating anything in the comprehensive plan or if we're not saying that there are uses outside of RIRP

I hear Supervisor Mallek talked about how E.M.C.

Middleton has already had multiple studies that have outlined what is and is not possible.

That's a political history I'm most familiar with and I certainly don't like to read.

But I guess the thing I would raise is if we're going to talk about a yogurt shop that we were very excited about, or a yogurt

I would not assume that they come forward to us regardless of what the other factors on the ground are because they would know that they're going uphill against something that does not comply with the providence.

I certainly do not want to apply to any currency with any plan I had that we might think we

whether or not that use would actually be permitted by the board.

So I think if we are going to entertain even the possibility of any use type in these areas, then we need to try something saying that we will not just have to do something saying that we will actually be creating a roadmap for how people would use those.

Hey, Mike, can I interrupt you and ask a quick question?

Because I don't disagree with the point you're making.

What if we took out that last paragraph based on evaluation of the four interstate, interstate blah, blah, blah, and leave the first two paragraphs?

Would that work?

Yes.

So just take out that last paragraph, leave the first two in, and then add a comment about the economic development plan.

Yeah, I see that.

Supervisor Pruitt, given that we staff are going to be coming back to you all Supervisor Pruitt, staff is going to be coming back to you all with thoughts on how to amend land use designations in the

In the near future, would that provide the coverage for developers in these areas if somebody wanted to bring forward a project that was not lined up with what the future land use map indicates?

It seems like that will provide the coverage you're looking for for our developers without needing to go down the road of having these studies performed.

I think that could be fine, yeah.

I want to balance the need for preserving

If we want to do literally anything in these areas I think we have

So sorry, that did not directly answer the question.

Sounds good.

Oh golly.

Okay.

I think the two elements I'm hearing you say is one, we would entertain something that advanced economic development plans, agricultural forest type uses in these areas.

Except the yogurt people were rural area youth, so they didn't need anything.

I mean, there was no CBA required for them.

That was my example.

So I don't know if there is any reason.

I think what we're talking about is there are these uses that could happen that would

to support the rural agricultural economy.

Your point taken, you can still have a rural food producer that may not need an aggregation facility.

But if somebody wanted to do an aggregation facility, this may be a good spot for something like that.

And the county would recognize that in consistency with the economic development plan.

That's part of a project coming forward.

Why don't we, if there's general consensus that that might be a, without getting to the details, give us a chance, we can rewrite that and bring it back forward.

I'm okay with that, I like that video.

Okay, alright, we'll come up with some wording there then.

Thank you all very much.

Yes, we are still at Supervisor Pruitt.

That was the main thing I was going to actually dig into.

I will endorse the 4.5 removal.

So the one thing I think I might dive into that seems to be potentially an issue

I think that that would be exactly what an action or objective in the comp plan should be.

It should be us identifying something that is additional to what we want to do in the future.

So I think, yes, the idea of how we might engage with a transfer bill in this program is unfinished.

And similarly, 5.1, I recognize that 5.1 is going to be refined further as we kind of realize how, as we actualize that improvements.

I actually think 5.1 is remarkably, maybe even problematic.

And I could generally endorse the concepts and considerations it includes.

I would just note that, you know, when we look at paragraph 3 of 5.1,

I agree with that as almost certainly precluding of us, right, because it does consider way more appropriate for us to be impact on water and sewer facility road capacity and impacts like every single one of those criteria.

And these criteria, this is why we have these criteria, but we can try and get Dr. Ho's 2.0 rather than

Good chapter.

OK.

Going back to page two, I would increase the adaptive use of existing structures in rural communities for uses that provide

It says essential services.

I take out the word essential because that's subjective.

What's essential to you is not essential to me.

And daily needs.

I would end it there, period, and take out four rural residents because we have a billion dollar industry in our tourism bureau.

between Charlottesville and Albemarle County, a billion dollars a year, and tourists go out in the rural area.

And so I would just not say for rural residents you want it for

So on page 8, I agree we're looking at that, we're not maybe necessarily, do we agree to remove it, or we're just looking at that to see that area, what comes in, but with severe restrictions.

For example, in the Pan Tops area, you can't connect water and sewer.

I thought you were discussing that too.

I think where we're sitting at this moment is that staff is going to come back with some kind of language that talks about entertaining projects that advance the economic development strategic plan and we would engage on a process to update the comprehensive plan amendment for that area.

To leave it open.

And I agree, I mean I agree with Supervisor Mallek in the Yancey area.

Just one last point on the Shadwell area, you'll notice that the area got smaller on the map.

Yes.

Underline that, the quarry came out, the VDOT property came out in the third place.

I mean, probably everyone else got this, but I'm just, I'm not understanding the creation of the Transfer and Development Rights Program for the rural area.

Can you just explain 2.5?

2.5, okay, yeah.

Yeah, so.

In a nutshell.

The process of discussing this plan, the idea came from you all on transfer development.

Program.

And broadly speaking, that is an idea that development rights in one area are reduced by another area purchasing those rights from another area and transfer the development rights.

I think the reason we wrote it this way is recognizing that the development areas, typically your receiving area, the places it takes it, is an area of development.

In the development area, we're trying to maximize the development.

To make it something that somebody in the development area actually had to go out and purchase development rights to do what they wanted to do sort of did make a lot of sense.

So if we're going to have something like this, I think the only logical construct is to have some receiving area in the rural area.

And that may be determined to be a bad idea, but I think that that's what the construct is proposed.

and I think it's sort of a reflection of some of the discussion we heard from the board.

Okay, thank you, thank you.

4.5, I agree with Hinging out in Old Lake and

This is what I'm having a problem with.

If adaptive reuse is not feasible, and I agree that there may be some developers who say, well that's not feasible, tear it down.

Okay, we don't want that.

But what if it truly isn't feasible and this building remains because you can't tear it down or replace it and it really shouldn't be?

It shouldn't remain.

I'm just thinking on a practical scale, maybe it could be determined by staff whether or not it's feasible.

Because I see Supervisor Mallek's point that developers can just tear it down.

So I think with the striking of the last sentence in this paragraph,

I don't think you're losing anything because the purpose of this was supposed to be encouraging people who have an antiquated or unused structure to rehab it and bring it back to life.

And the purpose was if you're bringing it back to life,

There may be a reason why it went out of business in the first place and it may be too small or it may need some adjustments or it may need something else that wasn't ever contemplated in the original building.

But by taking out that last sentence, it doesn't encourage people to bulldoze it.

And that's, I think, that was the bright line I was hearing from Supervisor Mallek.

But I think

You don't want people to just claim it's not feasible.

Now the second paragraph, the last line, local artisans, crafters, daycare, post offices, emergency shelters, and access to, I would just say an access to food.

I take out affordable and healthy because what's your definition of affordable and healthy?

The next one is the I disagree with my colleague in Malek regarding the restaurants.

Once again tourism brings in a billion dollars a year in this area.

Even in the rural areas, people go to pockets of areas where there is food.

I've heard from the people in Stony Point.

You have Stony Point Market, which is a little tiny venue, but on Friday nights they bring in people and they play, you know, fiddles and it's a jam session and everything.

And it's really popular.

That's the only thing in Stony Point.

The only thing.

Otherwise, people in the borough areas have to get in their cars, they've got to drive into Charlottesville.

So, and I agree, I don't want anything like buckies or anything like that, but I can see where it makes sense or if someone applies for a small

What I really like what you all did is you put in criteria.

Impact on existing water and sewer.

We don't want to do that.

Road capacity.

Okay.

Impacts to adjacent neighbors and surrounding rural character.

I think those are good boundaries that people would have to respect if they wanted to have something like that.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley, I'm going to phone a friend.

I'm going to phone Bart here.

Because this paragraph started out with small-scale uses, so by definition it's limiting it to

buildings that are one to two stories or footprints of 5,000 square feet or smaller by the fact that this proposed restaurant use is nestled in this paragraph.

Does that mean that that use is being informed by that?

Yeah, so to summarize our balance point, it talks about it in there or suggests maybe one way of reading it is that it's a standalone use and it's not associated, say, with an event venue or a country store.

So arguably, if we take Dr. Ho's in its infancy, way back when, as more of a country store,

I think the ability to be able to do this with the right performance standards is beneficial to us if we want to compete tourism-wise with the 151s of the world but at the same time not get out of hand where we have

So there's only probably two places that that could happen.

Where it is now or in Arleysville Green because those are both sound commercial.

So if I pick on Batesville for a minute, let's say the store goes out and somebody wants to open up a

you have to do the hopeful store.

So there may be opportunities where kind of the neighborhood gathering place, similar to what goes on at Stony Point, goes on in Batesville, right?

Or Dave, or Alliance, right?

But if the store popularity becomes less for whatever economic reason, but the food sales hangs on,

arguably more like Hunt Country Store, then we want to have that ability to keep that one structure of property in that type of community viable.

So accessory is the word that seems that I missed.

If it's in there, I missed it.

The real stuff is in the zoning ordinance.

So the example I used earlier with the country store, that's really where the meat and potatoes is.

how we regulate that doesn't even qualify to be this thing it has to have certain stuff so when we decide through discussion and crafting of regulation that's where the teeth is so we're not going to say you could do this based on the comp plan with the right of regulation that mirrors the discussion we had that the

We want to experiment or we want to investigate this and come up with the right language and look at some opportunities that may exist after.

We may go through this and find out that there's only one place this could happen and it's not worth it.

We may investigate it and say, oh, if we had one down south, one in the north,

You know, we have some opportunities to spread out our tourism so there's a circuit that folks can run and do certain things.

If we were to add the word accessory into this sentence, so it would read, when the proposed accessory uses a restaurant, the following factors should be considered.

puts in, let's say, the Beasville store.

Okay, that store goes out of business.

Someone comes in with a nice little restaurant or sandwich shop.

That's not an accessory use.

You're completely switching the use.

I mean, my point is, why limit us?

Now, yes, in character and everything, we don't want McDonald's.

We don't want Denny's.

We don't want that all over the place.

Absolutely.

I do believe that we can word it so that you know we've been a fast especially used to prevent.

All I'm saying is it may be possible and it's probably worthy of looking into as part

But is there some criteria that makes it work?

Like I said, we may go through this and find out that there isn't, but we can go through this and find out that there isn't.

And would the term accessory fit the... So accessory, if I use Little Washington as the example, that would imply that unless I'm staying at the inn, I can't eat at the restaurant.

that I don't believe, that's too narrow a scope for the discussion.

I think you could work that out.

and Diantha are four striking 7.5s.

Yes.

I am too.

I guess I just want to know whether there are open issues from what has been discussed because I'm okay with most of what I've heard.

I think that there is an issue

I heard the word essential being taken out and then for rural residents also being taken out.

I don't want the words for rural residents being taken out because it's not going to also serve those rural residents

It's also on page 11.

It's the same thing.

Services and daily needs.

You're only taking out the word provide instead of provide essential services and daily needs for rural residents.

I still think there are significant issues here with trying to open the door a little bit to what we want and not open the door to what we don't want and trying to specify what that is.

I'm a little bit worried about that and clearly I think already in 5.1 we have a contradiction between essential services and then talking about restaurants and things like that as whether or not they are categorized that way but I think that's wordsmithing at this point I don't think that I have disagreement with what's being discussed as far as

I'm allowing this to be considered.

And that's where I am with this.

So are there things that you feel that you need to have additional feedback on?

On 2.5, I'll just say, assess the creation of a transfer development rights program for the rural area, sending and receiving areas.

I don't mind if you take the whole

looking into whether there is a viable GDR program.

Just the first sentence.

Just the first sentence.

Would you all be okay with that?

On 2.5, leaving the first sentence only and removing the rest of it.

I can live with that.

My problem is not the idea, my problem is opening the door without recognizing what our limits are on this.

Okay, well, that's the word.

That's why I can... Yeah, that's the zone.

Yeah.

I do have one thing.

Thank you.

Ms.

Oh, you consider adjustments to development boundaries to align existing uses and infrastructure.

I had that marked for removal, but I mean the point is that we're talking about new permitted uses for the rural area zoning district should be evaluated based on the following.

A point of clarification.

Could you, objective five, could you give me an example of, you're saying the Boyd Tavern would come under that?

You mean the gas station that they wanted to be there?

It didn't really benefit the local people.

They were very upset about it.

It would benefit the people on the highway.

There were also a lot of people in the area, not the immediate area, of course, but in the area like Glenmore,

Mike, do you want to weigh in on this or not?

Which one?

The rural residents?

So if you're throwing a cap in there, I'm not sure that's the right cap.

Right, thank you.

Is there anything else on this chapter?

It's what happens to me with my newsletter when I do a snip of something and then try to put it in paper

I was going to say in the earlier edition.

So thank you.

Oh my gosh.

No pressure.

And actually, I don't have very much for transportation.

I think I just have a couple of things.

On page six, my flag, red flag went up when

So because MicroCat right now is, as you know, a trial, it's a pilot.

It is going to be what would be very expensive if we decided to take it over.

I'm just saying.

And we're going to be making that decision next year or some point.

And this acts as if it is a done thing and it's kind of a bummer.

And so I might add

re-evaluate at each budget cycle.

I don't know.

Is it associated with the company and the service?

Is it the service, or is it the company?

No, it's the what it is.

And right now, it's fare-free.

And we have to decide as a board, not me, but you guys have to decide next year whether we're going to keep it.

Are we going to start charging for it?

Is it going to remain free?

And if it's free to riders like it is now, it is going to be super expensive in addition to cash.

Supervisor McKeel, would it be alright with you if we added a sentence at the end of the paragraph on the right-hand side of page 6?

So it would read, funding for micro-cab will be reviewed with each budget cycle.

That's fine.

The way it is right now is not... Thank you.

All right, page 7.

Clarify for me design, oh I'm sorry, under safety, last sentence, design infrastructure with safety and math for all road users.

I think about that as vehicles, but we need to make sure pedestrians are... I think that's why we use the term all road users.

So it's okay, as long as that's what your intent is.

I'm happy with that.

Now, I love seeing improved transit access to the airport.

I think I am OK, and I like charging stations increased.

That's good.

Oh, I did wonder, just because of our discussions at the RTP, 2.3, do we want to add Virginia Breeze under 2.3?

It's just Junk Connect, Afton Express, Virginia Breeze.

Thanks.

The only thing I have is this.

It's going to feel pretty easy.

4.1 rural.

I don't know.

I'm very excited about the three lunch trail.

Another supervisor mentioned support would be a better verb there than prioritize perhaps.

I think yes.

Whoever wants to help me, it's the one, two, third paragraph in the middle.

Efficient vehicular movement over other modes, okay?

With wide traveling and minimal traffic calming measures.

that can lead to higher travel speeds.

I think what we were trying to do with that paragraph, we tried to outline some of the challenges that we faced working with VDOT.

and maybe on some of them you could put like a dot dot dot and change the four line dot whatever.

I ensure bike facilities are separated from vehicular traffic where appropriate.

I'd also put in or feasible or just take out appropriate and put feasible because it might be appropriate but it may not be feasible.

OK, then on 6.7, I would proactively reduce fees to improve safety, investigate installation.

I would put, just a suggestion, prioritize.

Because I think red light cameras for speeders, we have a lot of people running red lights.

We had it on Rio.

Rio, and 29, and then it was taken care of.

We built a whole great separation for that.

And I know, pardon me, if Supervisor Galloway was here, he knows the intersection I'm talking about, which is 250 and 20, which a lot of people go through the red light.

I guess I don't really have a problem with it, although I don't know if we've got speeding cameras whether prioritized suddenly changes what we're going to be doing.

You have employers.

You have employment sectors in both.

No, it's page four, the left side, just before the third, just at the third bullet.

Not the black bullet, right.

We'd love to see some mention of due to the efforts of our family vineyard owners.

Winery owners, but the assistance of the CACVP recognized the tourism for the Wine Enthusiast Award because this reads like the CBB did the whole thing.

I'm sorry, Supervisor Mallek, I didn't make a note of what you said at the read-in on that.

Due to the efforts of our family vineyard,

and Winery owners with the assistance of the CACVD, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

That would be things respectful of their efforts.

It does feel like it should be.

It's a little tacky here.

I don't have a problem.

OK.

Next, page 8.

Right-hand column, middle paragraph, office, industrial, and hotel

is next to the last sentence.

We don't have manufacturing anywhere.

We don't have anywhere in the document because I was going to say we have some manufacturing.

I said what you said.

I was confused at first.

So it's the non-residential land in the middle of the middle category.

Move it to after hotel use.

Or put manufacturing in there somewhere, anywhere you want to put it.

And the end of the three bullets below.

Somewhere, please consider avoiding converting light industrial and manufacturing

to residential, because that's the creation of our lack, is the fact that we've given away hundreds of acres of formerly LI and HI land, Wegmans, etc.

to residential uses.

Is that industrial and commercial, Supervisor Malle?

or certainly Light Industrial.

I didn't say commercial.

I wrote at the top, emphasize redevelopment somewhere, but I don't know if that's... Oh, okay, last paragraph.

These studies identify the need to ensure.

How are we going to ensure any of these things?

Just leaving that on the table there for you.

anything to say except that I love the diversify the economy and tax base.

That was great.

Thank you very much for that.

And really, I don't think I have anything else.

Thank you.

Have we discussed this thing yesterday?

We have talked about a defense production zone many times in different contexts, but I don't believe we've ever brought it to the board for your consideration and a vote.

So, Supervisor Pruitt, we haven't brought it to you or discussed it

I guess I was just, I realized I did not remember us having, I didn't remember seeing this previously, and candidly I don't know what all of this production zone entails.

Just going off the words, it sounds fine, and I have no reason to oppose it.

Supervisor Pruitt, the staff team over here has offered a friendly amendment to that 3.3 verb.

It's a 4.3, I would suggest because of possible changes by the CACVB board that we, at the end of that, Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau or local Visitors Bureau.

And then that way we don't have to, I know, I know, I know, so that way,

I mean, I think the word convention may be struck, but we don't know.

That decision may be made soon, and if the name change is done by the CACDB board, then I would inform you, and then you can just go through the document.

So that may be a global replace that we wind up having to deal with.

OK.

Before we go forward for adoption.

Yeah.

I think we probably were thinking about on our side.

I'm sorry, I should have mentioned that.

I'll just keep track.

Okay.

Housing.

Okay.

Alright.

We're getting there, Trevor.

You can send that for pizza.

So, yellow on page two.

Others may be told this, but to me objective seven should be number one.

Objective four should be number two.

Objective five should be number three.

Just because of importance, we should be

increasing accessible housing options in the community before we get into all the other stuff.

And so personally, I would very much like to prioritize using the modular whenever possible because of that very fact.

Whereas the mobile and manufactured are treated as personal property and therefore do not have the financial benefit and the sort of equity ladder that the modular does.

So I'm just pointing that out.

Yeah, I just would love to see if you can add something about that in there that I received.

And... Missing middle, page 12.

I may have forgotten to ask about this last time.

It says in the second paragraph, some zoning ordinance restrictions could limit or prohibit development of these units.

Where?

I don't know of any.

I mean we have Badler Grove, we have Emerson Commons already in existence.

I don't know where in Albemarle.

Now some of this may have been copy pasted from someplace else where there are restrictions that are preventing these, but I don't know of any in Albemarle.

What page are you on?

If it's real, then I'd like to know what they are, and if it's not, let's take it out.

I just found that was really... We can take a look at it.

There's some perspective involved in there as how large is a large yard and how small is a small yard.

supply middle list residential and I just 1.5 I just wrote in add smaller lot sizes where appropriate similar to what I talked about today and 1.6 we use the existing structures upper floors over 14 foot first floor would be

when I would support it for a commercial because then it can always go back.

Similar to what's done in Rio right now, you can see that that first floor next to PhotoWorks is quite high because that was supposed to be commercial and then they're allowed to put residential in there until it figures out what's happening.

Yeah, that's what we're going to do.

I should have asked, is that what it is?

We're getting tired.

As long as they can structurally go back, I guess that's the best we can get right now.

And that, I think, oh, page 18, 7.1, I think these also exist already, but I'm glad to have them promoted.

Emerson Commons, they have the original farmhouse where they have a big kitchen and for lead parties and stuff.

I agree with a couple of those things I answered.

Another one on page 8, is Rutgers cited?

Yeah, just to help you find them.

Going to 10 and 11, I really appreciate this information.

Thank you, and I really appreciate you adding the ALIS data, because the ALIS data is magisterial specific.

and it only includes employed people and not students, which is really important.

And I will say that one of my friends who is an economist says we ought to be referencing the Economic Policy Institute Family Budget Calculator because you can go into the county level

and it's more current than what we are using here.

And we reference, of course we reference the orange dot report and blah, blah, blah, blah.

But his suggestion is the Economic Policy Institute

Family Budget Calendar, and that is current by county.

So I'm going to let you guys look at that.

So Economic Policy Institute Family Budget Calculator.

More current, yeah calculator.

Maybe I said calendar, I'm tired.

And it's possible to search by county.

So you might want to take a look at that because it's always good to use the most current.

and I probably said that when I was tired.

And I think that's it for me.

There's a few things that I would raise and I'm going to go straight to, I'll start at 16, you know me, I like to go straight to the Jefferson Act.

I think we discussed this previously, I don't remember how it ended up out, but I would suggest that if you're going to have a serious policy conversation about

I think that conversation should be broader than this constrains us to.

I would worry that manufactured and mobile homes both aren't economically feasible in the development area and I feel like that is

Mike, they're struggling to figure out where you are.

I'm sorry.

You probably did, and I just got lost.

Point being, if we're going to have a serious conversation about manufactured housing, I think we can't constrain ourselves to development areas only.

I would want us in the conversation we have in a possible

I think we would need to consider the possibility of a manufactured housing district being allocated somewhere in the U.S.

Because purely in the development area, I don't know if it's economically feasible.

I'm not saying we're committing ourselves to that.

I'm just saying if we're going to actually have that conversation, that's 2.1 in commonplace.

Because 2.1 is compensating the future legislative action.

If it includes manufactured module, then that would complete the picture.

I assumed it did.

Supervisor Pruitt-Bard just reminded me that really the two types of these sorts of homes now are manufactured and modular.

Mobile is the old kind of, we don't want to encourage them coming back.

Okay, we're with you.

I had one other thing, oh yes, so, this is minor, and I don't think that's going to be starting a controversy.

Page 17, action 4, decimal 4.

I like this, the only thing I would add is, we talk about

Reducing Involuntary Displacement, Increasing Access to Equitable Relocation Options, a tool that is in some localities toolkit is also like various things like requiring relocation plans, other types of things.

I wonder if we could simplify this by just saying reduce and ease involuntary displacement without having to get into it, you know.

This particular action has a reference to Housing Albemarle.

So I think this is adapted.

So we're OK to change it?

I think so.

We'll check with Dr. Mendez.

On page 12, the last paragraph on the right side, we're talking about form, you know, mental housing and focus on form rather than density.

I'm wondering, guys, because remember we had that lease

Form-based code.

Excuse me.

Thank you for the clarification.

And I'm wondering whether or not we need this anymore.

This last paragraph.

Pardon?

The paragraph.

Yeah.

Or the percentage.

I mean, density is what we want.

is, especially if you're doing this, say, in an existing neighborhood, you could have something that kind of looks like a single-family house, but may have multiple units in it.

OK.

OK.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Page 14, left-hand side, second sentence.

The Purpose of Housing, Albemarle, the last line, using the policies implementation tools to meet the diverse housing needs.

How about you being varied?

You know, I'm trying to... You all know what I'm trying to do.

But using varied housing needs.

16 page 16 all right this is something I don't know for factually or not but I understand that the legislature has given churches the right to

I could put residential units or like a duplex quad, triplex, something like that, if they have the land in the back.

And so maybe allowing, which would also help with our low income, very low income housing needs, and then maybe to have something in there where we're allowing those units by right in church

Yeah, I mean, we'd have to look at any legislative changes to the code and our loop and see what that is.

But I think that's... As opposed to this.

Yeah.

Yeah.