Planning Commission Regular Meeting   1/14/2025

OK, so to conduct the election of the chair, I would like to roll first.

We have to take roll first.

Oh, thank you.

Would you like me to roll?

Yes, ma'am, would you call us to order first?

Mr. Bivins.

Here, please.

Mr. Murray.

Here.

Mr. Clayborne.

Here.

Mr. Missel.

Here.

Mr. Carrazana.

Here.

And Mr. Moore is absent today.

Any nominations?

Mr. Chair, I would like to nominate Commissioner Missel to continue in his fine role as chair of the Planning Commission.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

Mr. Carrazana.

Aye.

Mr. Clayborne.

Aye.

Mr. Missel.

Thank you.

Mr. Murray.

Hi.

And Mr. Bivins.

Hi.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

I think my first order of business is to ask if there are nominations for the vice chair of the Albemarle County Planning Commission.

I would like to nominate Commissioner Carrazano for the position of Vice Chair for the 2025 year.

Hearing none, is there a motion to elect Commissioner Carrazano as Vice Chair?

So move, please.

Second.

Can we call the roll please?

Mr. Bivins?

Aye.

Mr. Murray?

Aye.

Mr. Clayborne?

Aye.

Mr. Missel?

Aye.

Thank you.

Mr. Barnes, would you present proposed changes?

They have the same as they were last year.

So do we need to have a motion?

Yes, sir.

Do we have the roll please?

Who's second is it?

Thank you.

Mr. Carrazana.

Hi.

Mr. Missel.

Hi.

Mr. Clayborne.

Hi.

Mr. Bivins.

Hi.

Thank you.

Are there committees you'd like to serve on?

If possible, I'd request that I remain on the ones which I'm currently assigned to, please.

Awesome.

Commissioner Murray.

I'm fine unless someone doesn't want to do the MPO.

Mr. Clayborne.

Fine to remain as is.

Commissioner Carrazana.

I have struggled at times to make the MPO tech meeting because of when it's just given the other commitments and my day job.

When is it held?

It's one Tuesday a month.

Yeah.

I'm going to do that.

I'm willing to trade on some other committee.

You might be on Lonnie if that's, I don't know if there's one that you... AC44 working group, as your CAC is probably the one you want to stay on.

When does that one meet?

It's not random.

As needed or okay.

Can you make a random commitment to the random schedule?

It'll be a couple times this year and then we'll be sort of wrapping up.

I'm happy to pick up another committee.

Okay, you good?

Yes, I'm fine staying with the committees I have.

Commissioner Murray goes to the MPL.

Awesome.

Do we need a motion for that?

Yes, if there could be a motion and a vote to that effect.

May we have the roll, please?

Mr. Bivins?

Aye.

Mr. Murray?

Aye.

Mr. Clayborne?

Aye.

Mr. Missel?

Aye.

Mr. Carrazana?

Aye.

Thank you.

and Dr. Barnes, would you present a brief overview?

and Christmas is 25th and so we're moving forward to the 16th.

And if not, would someone like to make a motion?

I move to adopt the meeting schedule for 2025-26.

I have a second.

Any discussion?

All right.

May we have the roll please?

Mr. Carrazana.

Hi.

Mr. Missel.

Hi.

Mr. Clayborne.

Hi.

Mr. Murray.

Hi.

Mr. Bivins.

Hi.

Thank you.

Okay, item number seven, the consent agenda.

And so that proposed resolution in the packet requires its own motion and vote.

Do I have a motion to approve that?

Second.

And the roll, please.

Mr. Bivins?

Aye.

Mr. Murray?

Aye.

Mr. Feigern?

Aye.

Mr. Missel?

Aye.

Mr. Carrazana?

Aye.

Thank you.

And are there any commissioners who would like to pull either of the two minutes?

Mr. Chair.

I moved the public comment period.

Yeah, I was going to do that next.

All right.

Move to approve the items.

I move to adopt the consent agenda as presented.

May we have the roll, please?

Mr. Bivins?

Aye.

Mr. Murray?

Aye.

Mr. Clayborne?

Aye.

Mr. Missel?

Aye.

Mr. Carrazana?

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll start with John Watkins.

Thank you.

Next on my list is Sean Casselet.

I live in Southern Albemarle County and I'm sorry.

Just stay your name, please.

and I live in Southern Albemarle County and I'm also here to talk about biosolids and John, that was amazing.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Thank you.

Are there any online?

No, sir.

All right.

Thank you.

So that is something that I think we should investigate there and would be a good, good item to include in the compliance plan.

Thank you.

All right.

Do I open the public hearing now or do I wait and open the public hearing after?

So there'll be a staff presentation and then the followed by public comment limited to three minutes per speaker.

OK, so we're not opening the public hearing yet.

I see.

With that, may we have the staff report on ZTA 2023-1 commercial solar?

Thank you.

We'll start with Commissioner Firehock.

I have more comments, so I'll just hold them.

Okay, Mr. Carrazana.

I wasn't quite following how the decommissioning requirements would apply.

And we're not proposing that it be done.

It could actually be, as we saw recently, more like a 30-acre parcel.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Thornton.

Mr. Claver?

No questions on the structure.

Reconvince for Erasion and Sediment Control or Setbacks.

So it would be subject to the same erosion control measures of any other area of disturbance.

So would they also require vegetative screening?

All of section 5165 would apply to a by right, except for the decommissioning for the ones that are under 21.

And they'd be required to participate in the pollinator smart certification process?

And that was based on the conversations we had with the state, what the right level was to establish that acreage for a project.

Can you talk about that?

Does that answer your question?

It does.

On page three, if you could just help me understand a bit more about what the fencing is on 14 and how we will make sure that there are wildlife transits through those fences.

That's very helpful.

So say, if you're going to fence out in the rural area, if you're going to enclose by fencing out in the rural area, then this is going to be our new standard to be able to provide access for wildlife through and above.

for any type of project?

I was thinking of the concern that people shared out in Secretary Road, if that project ever comes back to us, that there was a bunch of concern by the people who lived around that, that whether or not this person would really be operating their solar project in a way that was beneficial to all, or if they got tired of it, just walk away and walk away.

So that's why and that's your option is on how to do it.

And I'm sort of saying as a way to start, that's a very reasonable start because it could always be altered if in fact you were finding that people were not being as honest as we would, as companies were not being as honest as we would hope.

Thank you, sir.

once that's no learned use, could we not utilize that other ordinance that we have in existence to require cleanup of the property if there was dilapidated solar panels on it?

Chair, I do have another question.

Agent refers to Mr. Barnes, I assume.

And has in the past.

I feel better.

Like what would be appropriate in terms of scale for solar facility as opposed to sort of fitting it into what we already have with 21 acre parcels?

Got it.

Have you looked at

We have to use the adopted comprehensive plan.

So the identification, sort of the objective piece is that it's in the COMP plan.

and if the conference plan is updated for any reason, then this would follow along and have new forest areas identified.

So there isn't a scenario where a landowner might own two 21-acre parcels that adjoin, that could both be buy-right solar without a significant buffer, and that buffer is found in that table, right?

However, just to go back and they could go to the Board of Supervisors and say, we would like to have that modified or waived, and the Board would go through the review and do whatever the Board is going to do to modify or waive that.

Could you kind of explain that?

I'm going to let Linn answer this also because this is best practices.

Okay.

So 10 feet is the industry standard for that.

The setback standards do not apply to parcels under common ownership.

Does that make sense?

I guess I'm just trying to envision a scenario where you might own both parcels and you might sell one of the parcels.

and the buyer would know where those structures are at the time.

That was all of my questions.

My question was just who monitors that, you know, like that that was not dead or whatever.

So the state who has the expertise in this program would be the one and they are eager and happy to do it.

Other questions?

I think that might be helpful.

That's why it's available.

So basically you're getting perhaps like 150, you're getting 150 feet or is it just really within the 100 feet you're talking about putting a planting strip.

Thank you.

Did you consider maybe starting with 21 acres as the parcel size and then adjusting down the panel size to accommodate for a reasonable amount of setback and erosion systemic control?

So if you can provide us guidance with, you know, I think it should be 21 acres of cleared area, you know, of, you know, the zone, okay, we can work backwards from that.

I was just explicitly referring to that for those properties that don't fall under the 21 acre process.

I'm just not comfortable answering the question, you know, right now.

The property, the personal property is functional.

Is that a measure that can be used other than panel size?

You see where we're going.

But can you talk about some other things that would be excluding?

Does that help?

How often are we updating?

We've got a board of supervisors and the board would have to take that consideration.

for the end of the year, where our forests have actually improved in Virginia, and they're sequestering 40% of our carbon output currently, not just the forest, but obviously the soil as well.

But if it's updated, then this ordinance would follow along with whatever update was made.

It would not be difficult to update the map with data that's available now.

a perverse incentive, perhaps, or something to clear that some of that forested areas is no longer a forest, so it would no longer be the forest block.

It's just not mapped specifically enough that we can base a zoning ordinance on it.

That way, when we do get the better data, we can just apply it to the habitat block as opposed to the forest block.

So it's just a funny way that they wrote it in the Biodiversity Report.

Because we'll have a chance to go into discussion later as well.

Mr. Fritz has the fire department just weighed in with this shift to 21 acre panel zones being by right, any concerns there if something caught on fire is a lack of water supply out there just

That's their biggest concern.

Okay, so nothing about the water supply?

So, no, there was no concern beyond that raised.

It's Carol Carter.

Thank you.

Carol Carter and then on deck is Martha Donnelly.

Thank you.

Martha Donnelly and Kimberly Swanson is on deck.

So I ask that the final draft of the solar ordinance be specific and flexible and to encourage solar agrovoltaics so that we can encourage our wildlife.

Thank you.

Kimberly Swanson, Catherine Riley, and on deck is Veronica Vitko.

Thank you.

Veronica Vitko and on deck is, I think it's Carolyn Pugh.

Thank you.

Carolyn Pugh, and my last name is O'Flynn.

and Clean Energy and also keep in mind all of the different possible co-benefits that these projects can have, including things like pollinator, but not only focusing on pollinator gardens and things, they bring in tax revenues, there can be agrivoltaics and trying to preserve existing mature trees and things like that are all potential ways that these projects can add to the community while offering a little bit of flexibility in how that can be done.

Paula Beasley is on deck.

Thank you.

All of easily and Sean Kossay is on deck.

Thank you for your time.

Sean Cassette and Jane Zahork is on deck.

Thank you.

Jayne Zahork and Christine, I think it's Mentomat for Montomat is on deck.

Hi, good evening.

Good evening.

Thank you for your time.

Christine Putnam is.

Thank you.

Christine Putnam and Donna Shanasi, I think, is on deck, please.

All right, thank you.

Donna Shaughnessy and Valerie Longs on deck.

So again, kudos to the staff for their excellent work on this and thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts.

Valerie Long, and Chris Meyer is on deck.

Thank you.

Chris Meyer and Susan Kraus on deck.

Thank you very much for your time.

Susan Kraus.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am, please come forward.

Thank you for your consideration.

Is there anybody else who would like to speak to this?

Thank you all.

Yes, ma'am.

Hello.

Thanks.

If not, is there anyone online?

Do you have one person online?

Okay.

And when you start talking, please state your name and where you're located, and you'll have three minutes.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Thank you so much.

For anyone else online?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, we haven't gone into discussion yet, but any comments or questions on the information we heard from the community?

Commissioner Bivins.

You weren't here there.

It was highly eroded, highly degraded.

And so I've not yet, in all of our time doing this, and this is a question, I'm getting to a question, have we ever approved a site where they were actually going to come in and take a forest down?

or it was Cleared Fields.

that it's not mostly hay.

Well, part of the reason we haven't seen other applications is because of the specialist process, I would think that has limited that as limited that.

But it does mean that we're sensitive to, as a community, we're sensitive to preserving land in ways that make sense for the future.

Any other questions of clarity?

So the issue of the cash requirement as opposed to what we do for some of the other.

The bond issue?

Because you clarify why the difference here and that.

It's not cash.

Okay, just yeah.

That was the intent.

What would be the alternative in case they could not receive certification within it?

So we'd like that to be done by the Board of Supervisors, and that's why we have it written that way.

Any other questions for clarification?

I just have comments.

Is there a gray area that I'm not seeing or that we're missing?

Unfortunately, it's an imperfect tool, but it's the only one we have.

I'm not saying it's super easy what I just said.

You still go through the special use permit process, but instead of it taking 180 days, it takes 100 days or whatever the number is.

either an administrative approval or if it gets above a certain level, something that has to be a legislative act, that would be our recommendation to you.

So, anyway, I just thought about it.

Is there a rationale why that?

At some point, I don't know.

when it came to decommissioning.

If you feel okay with that acreage size, but you have elements that you're worried about, we can probably, there's ways to be creative.

So if there's going to be decommissioning, there's got to be some way to make it happen.

So let's wait.

There's both the.

Well, we can get into the other.

You just don't sort of pop up.

Same process.

I think that helped influence why we were thinking of the numbers that we were.

the special use permit in the site plan process.

So we generally encourage applicants to not process the full plan, but we can we can start the review process of the site plan.

Yeah, I realize the applicant put the cost out for the involvement of the site plan if they're not going to get it.

You fundamentally do get more or less risk, right in a sense, because you're

It's fine, but we want to make sure we get sufficient information with the special use permit.

It's a large area of land.

They have to do a bunch of other things. 100%.

That seems out of step with the way that we subdivide land in the rural area.

Is that a fair way to look at?

They're easily fixable, like edits to language.

We often are aware or become aware as we do our final, we go, whoa, we could word that a little bit better.

But I'm just not comfortable with, with, with changing this whole thing to be mostly by right, except for really, really large projects.

I'm sorry, by right.

But I think I would just be pulling that out of my whatever.

and take it down.

The hardwood would still be preserved under the current.

No, you can take anything.

By right.

By right, you can't by right or by special use permit not permitted in a forest area identified in the comprehensive plan scoring 4.1 or higher.

Right, so those have to be at least 100 acres.

I built that model so I don't know what it is.