Planning Commission Regular Meeting   7/28/2026

It is 6 p.m. and we are calling the July 28th, 2026 Albemarle County Planning Commission to order.

As always, the planning condition, the public can access and participate in the meeting through information posted in the Albemarle County website, specifically on the Planning Commission's homepage and the Albemarle County calendar.

During the meeting, there will be opportunities for public comment and specific agenda items where input is invited.

Yes, sir.

Ms. Brown?

Here.

Ms. King?

Here.

Mr. Murray and Ms. Firehock are both out tonight.

Okay, if there are any items that the public, any matters that the public would like to speak to at this time, please come forward.

Seeing none, move on to our content agenda.

Do we want to

Do I get a motion?

Second.

OK. Ms. King?

Aye.

Mr. Clayborne?

Aye.

Ms. Brown?

Aye.

All right.

Move on to the public hearing and CMA 2026-4, Rivanna Futures.

Yes.

Second here.

Bill first.

This is ZMA 2604.

It's the Rivanna Futures.

It's an application for consideration of steep slopes.

Just to start to orient you with where we are, this image is taken from the rezoning application for this property, so the prior rezoning application.

It shows the boundaries of the property in red.

That's the property the county purchased and the portion that was reasonable to industrials in blue.

I've highlighted the approximate area

under consideration tonight of those slopes.

So you can see its relationship to the surrounding area and the zoning boundary can be seen.

The area highlighted is a little bit more extensive than the area proposed to be rezoned.

This was just done to make it a little easier to see the general location.

The zoning boundary represents the extent of the development area in both the existing and prior ordinance.

So just that blue area also

You can see where the boundary is between the rural and developed area of the county.

This application is a proposal to change the designation of preserved steep slopes to managed steep slopes.

The county has a steep slopes overlay district.

The district divides slopes into two categories, preserved and managed.

Preserved slopes are shown in green on the map before you tonight.

Vantage slopes are shown in yellow.

You may notice that there are some areas to the north and east of this, excuse me, east and far west that show in orange.

Those are critical slopes that are located outside of the development area.

So we have three designations that protect, oops, might help if I don't press the buttons.

that protect slopes.

Disturbance of preserved slopes is severely restricted.

To oversimplify what the regulations are, the permitted uses of preserved slopes are those necessary to allow some use of the property in order to prevent a taking and facilities that cannot avoid the slopes such as utilities and roads and uses identified in the comprehensive plan.

Managed slopes may be disturbed.

Any permitted disturbance of either type of slope is subject to review to ensure that the activity meets all the requirements of the zoning and water protection ordinances.

The area that's being proposed for rezoning tonight is approximately a half acre.

And you can see highlighted there the area we're talking about.

It's that northern area, as you can see there.

Unfortunately, our GIS system does not allow the aerial photo to be shown with the zoning information, but I wanted to show you this image that shows the extent of the industrial zoning of the area in blue.

Designated stream buffers are shown in purple, and we're gonna be talking about that a little bit more later.

Managed slopes are shown in yellow, and preserved slopes are shown in green.

The white areas of the map are zoned rural area,

The area slopes under consideration are these slopes and the areas to the north and to the east are zoned rural, but they are owned by the county.

So there's no adjacent properties right up against the area we're considering.

I wanted to share this image with you.

This is actually in your packet.

This is from the applicant's narrative, so if you really want to zoom in and see, there's a much more detailed plan in your packet.

It's one of the applicant's appendixes, and it shows the slopes, topography, water courses, and I just wanted to make sure you were aware you had this in case you want to look at it in a little more detail at your desk.

The zoning ordinance includes very detailed characteristics for both managed and preserved slopes.

The exact language of the ordinance is included in the staff report, and there's an analysis of each characteristic.

I'm not going to go over each one of those things.

Our finding was, is that these slopes display characteristics of both managed and preserved slopes.

That is not unusual or uncommon.

However, staff's opinion that generally these slopes do appear to have more characteristics of preserved slopes than of managed slopes.

One of the mixed findings staff made that led us to that conclusion is the relationship of the slopes to water features.

This image shows the stream buffers in purple and this image is in your staff report.

shows the stream buffers in purple from our GIS system and the slope designations are also shown.

During a field visit to the site, we investigated the water courses adjacent to these slopes.

We're very aware we did this in a drought and that was taken into consideration when we were looking at those streams.

Portions of the water courses are clearly intermittent and not subject to a stream buffer setback.

Those would be those dotted portions.

However, water was observed at the location shown above.

Preliminarily, it is believed that the stream may be perennial at this point from the solid blue line.

Additional verification will be made during site plan review process.

If the stream is determined to be perennial beyond the limits shown in purple above, the stream buffer will be applied.

There is no floodplain.

Just want to make that clear.

This determination will be made during the site development review process.

That's normal procedure.

If this rezoning is approved and a determination is made that the stream is perennial, the stream protection requirements of the ordinance will be applied.

So this rezoning does not supersede any of those protections.

Staff's analysis of the characteristics of these slopes based on the language included in the steeps overlay district resulted in mixed findings.

What's very important to note is that the content of the steep slopes overlay district is not the only factor that must be considered during the review process.

The state code and the county zoning ordinance set out specific criteria that must be considered.

This analysis is included in the staff report you have in your packet.

I'm not going to go into detail everything that's in that staff report.

Happy to talk about any of it, but I prefer that you ask me questions instead of trying to hit every single provision.

But I did want to highlight just a few things.

The county has on multiple occasions stated that the county's investment in Rivanna Futures creates a generational opportunity.

The importance of this property to the county and its economic development strategy is contained in the comprehensive plan and in the county's economic development strategy.

Very specific about this property and the opportunities of this property.

These are significant factors in support of a rezoning that would facilitate development of the property.

Industrial development

particularly large-scale industrial development of the type and vision for Rivanna Futures requires large building footprints with a single floor elevation.

To serve these buildings, travelways, storage areas, and loading zones are necessary.

These areas require limited slope and often needs large unbroken areas to accommodate large truck traffic, large truck turning radius, and safe operations of the loading and storage areas.

The location of the preserved slopes in the center on the screen

impact the ability to develop areas to the east and the west.

Those are highlighted in red.

These areas, the red areas, do not have limitations on development due to slope, stream buffers, or other requirements.

So effectively, the specific location of the steep slopes is restricting potential development of limited industrial land that we have in the county.

The comprehensive plan estimates that the theoretical capacity of the development area contains adequate theoretical capacity to accommodate projected growth.

However, the comprehensive plan also states that this is only theoretical capacity.

The comprehensive plan acknowledges that constraining factors limit the actual capacity and that this undermines the growth management policy.

To summarize, staff's analysis has resulted in mixed findings.

When considering the characteristics of steep slopes as contained in the overlay district provisions of the zoning ordinance, staff identified characteristics that support maintaining the existing preserved slope designation and characteristics that support a managed slope designation.

When all of the factors, that's all the factors in section 33 outside of the steep slopes

When all of the factors to be considered when drawing zoning district boundaries are incorporated into the review, staff's conclusion is that a rezoning is appropriate.

Particularly compelling to staff are the recommendations of the comprehensive plan,

and the recommendations of the Albemarle County Economic Strategic Plan, particularly the identified need for industrial land.

For the reasons included in the staff report, staff is recommending approval of this rezoning application.

And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

I have a question in the

Application.

One of the reasons suggested by the site engineer was prior use as agriculture for part of this area designated as deep slopes.

And that's the same area that seems a little less steep than, like when you look at it, it's like kind of the southern, southeastern portion of the property.

And that also seems to be like, just from a visual, like the less steep part of the slope.

It also mentioned there's some percentage of the area that might have a 25% or greater slope.

So, hopefully I understand your question.

If I don't answer it, let me know and I'll do my best.

So, staff looked at the information that the applicant provided about the historical use of this property for agriculture and that it may have been disturbed in the past.

Frankly, we did not find that a compelling factor for consideration.

We viewed the information that's in the content of the

Steep Slope Overlay District talking about it had been previously disturbed or had been previously approved for development, that that was more recent.

Those images were from the 30s.

So we were not particularly compelled by that commission maybe, but we were not.

As to why the applicant made this particular request for these slopes and maybe not some others, our understanding is to provide

In the drawing where you showed the green oval, yep, so the application

I'm just trying to get a general sense of how big this area is.

So the application is for about a half an acre.

The slopes that are identified there that I have highlighted, they're 0.46 acres is what it is.

And we're guessing that it impacts or has a significant impact on anywhere around four to six acres of land when you add in those two other bubbles.

You answered my question before I asked it.

Thank you.

I think that's all I have for right now.

I just had questions kind of about, I mean I've seen for years now the layers that we have in our GIS map for preserved steep slopes and versus managed steep slopes and I read the definitions and I still, there's a few parts of the suite of six or seven things that define a slope as one or the other that I still don't totally understand kind of where it came from and I was wondering if just if even if it's just for my own edification or to help consider this particular proposal if you wouldn't mind helping me.

One was the contiguous areas of 10,000 square feet or more.

And I was just wondering why that particular cutoff point was chosen as the definition.

Yes, the Board of Supervisors actually spent quite a bit of time discussing that when we were doing the steep slopes overlay district.

And they spent a lot of time crafting the language that they wanted for the characteristics of preserved and the characteristics of managed.

And that came specifically from discussions with the Board of Supervisors.

That's where that number came from.

needed a number, what's big?

How tall is tall?

And so they set that 10,000 square foot threshold for a significant contiguous area.

No, no, I totally get that.

I think in practice, it can be very odd looking on some maps, like in my neighborhood, or I've got

I manage steep slope in my backyard and like six doors down is a preserved steep slope, but I don't grok why one is one and one is the other.

Well, again, it is it is difficult because what we there are going to be some places where maybe it is less than 10,000 square feet.

But when you look at it, it's it's part of a larger hillside system.

So you may have five thousand five thousand.

There's a little sliver between the two.

Europe over 10,000, it may be appropriate to do.

So sometimes you're going to see that.

That is also actually was my next question because it's a jargon term.

I know what hillside means.

I know what system means.

It was trying to get to that you taken all together.

They made up a network.

There was a conglomeration of those kind of areas.

It was the best word they could come up with to kind of get that concept across.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And I was just, I mean, obviously the water feature ones, I definitely

We want to make sure that we don't, A, damage our drinking water, although that's particular to a certain part of the county.

But in general, we want to prevent erosion, and siltation, and excessive stormwater runoff.

That was a topic of conversation when the steep slopes overlay district was discussed.

It's how much is it necessary based on modern engineering techniques.

I will say that when the original steep slopes overlay district was established, retaining wall height within the steep slopes overlay district was limited to six feet.

and outside of the district it was 10 feet.

It does thank you yeah especially in the development areas I

You may notice that in the staff report we do note that one of the things that's identified in the comprehensive plan is a reevaluation of some of the environmental standards within the development areas in order to facilitate utilization of the potential capacity, the theoretical capacity.

Appreciate you, thank you.

Yeah, thank you for mentioning that and reminding us that that's one of the things that we discuss at length and I think we came to a good conclusion that we do need some revisiting of some of those conditions.

Yes, so I'm going to give the applicant the opportunity to come and speak in front of the commission.

All right, good evening.

My name is Blake Applenau.

I am the Rivanna Futures Program Manager working out of the County Executive's Office.

I'm involved in the development of the site itself, the county's properties, the future Boulder's Road extension grant work that we're currently doing on site, then a site preparation for county and future AstraZeneca work.

And my job for the most part is keeping everybody pointed in the right direction.

And we've been very fortunate to have Mr. Daniel Heyer here, a principal aligning grade engineering firm, who has been working with us since early 2023 in first evaluating the Rivanna Futures property.

and then helping us through development and also design related to some of the site work and utility connections that we're making.

Again, he's been involved since I think January of 2023, worked 10 months putting together a due diligence and engineering report which I thought would be interesting to show that, you know,

thoroughness and the care that's gone into evaluating this site and taking a good hard look at every little factor that could be an impact to you know initially to the decision that the county was going to be making on purchasing the land and then moving forward so

Daniel, I'm here basically to set him up.

He's going to talk about kind of a brief history of what transpired out at the site, his due diligence efforts, some of the development that's going on, some of the grant work that we're doing.

We've been fortunate.

to get transportation partnership opportunity funding for the Boulder's Road Extension, Virginia Business Ready Sites funding for some of the site work and utility work that we're doing out there, Go Virginia grants for design work that we did.

And collectively, they represent about $32 million worth of funding that we've been fortunate enough to get from other sources.

When it gets done that, it will briefly talk a little bit about the AstraZeneca development area and then talk in more detail, adding to what Bill had already communicated as it relates to this application itself.

Thank you, Blake.

Thank you, Bill.

Thank you, Commissioners.

I'm going to try to say what everyone else has already said but in different ways and try to provide a little more clarity where that was due.

We'll go through three movements in this brief presentation.

I will probably mostly recap a lot of what's been going on.

I'll talk briefly about the proposal and try to talk about any impacts associated with this proposal.

To take you on a slight journey, like Blake said, we've been working on this now since early 2023.

So we've gone through a very robust due diligence about the land.

Blake showed you this 600 page document.

There's plenty of answers to your questions in there.

And in fact, we're still doing due diligence on the property.

We continue to this day to continue to learn about it.

That due diligence led to the board purchasing this 462 acres.

Development and programming ensued and we'll work through these in more detail in a moment.

But long story short, it will bring us to today.

And I think this background will be helpful to understand the context of this application.

So without being too verbose, anything that you would want to know about this land likely has been studied, even very minute details like native plant, like plant community mapping and animal community mapping, which we're still doing to this day.

Everything from dam inspections to NEPA documents to the fine gritty detail I just mentioned.

We continue to be very careful and thorough in how we think about this land.

And that's important to consider when we talk about changing the classification of slopes on this property.

It's rooted in a thorough understanding of the landscape in general.

The land we're talking about is now shown in the more clear color.

The white overlay is beyond our property limits.

Within the black boundary is the 462 acres that the board purchased in December 2023, making a $58 million investment in this piece of land and the county more generally.

After the purchase, our firm was also retained to begin to

understand how the land can be used.

And after a number of iterations, we landed on a nomenclature called land base.

And there's a number of land base present at this property in varying acreages.

In 2024, after the land was purchased, we also assisted the county in applying for multiple grants, including the Go Virginia grant and VEDPs site readiness grant.

Also in 2024, a busy year, we rezoned.

We were before you then in 2024 to rezone 172 acres of the 462 acres into Light Industrial.

And we also at the same time had a special use permit for office use within that 172 acres.

Both of those applications were approved.

Not long thereafter, we began to

We learned of our success with the grant applications and we received a successful grant with Go Virginia, which helped to pay for a lot of the early level design work.

And then the EDP also awarded a grant of $9.7 million.

So the work in 2024 leading to the grants in 2025 was intentional and specific in how we were approaching those applications.

Not long after we were awarded the grant money we learned that AstraZeneca announced their intention to occupy this land and at first we thought it was going to be a smaller portion and then it ended up being a larger portion.

Their land is shown there in purple which is about 82 acres in total.

Currently bringing us to nearly today

There is early level construction activities happening.

Contractors mobilizing to begin implementing the site readiness work.

And bringing us to this application, there's a little shape.

This is the 0.46 acres of slopes that we are asking to be classified as managed instead of preserved.

and as Bill had mentioned, and after us having looked at this in a number of different ways, these slopes do contain characteristics of both preserved and managed depending on how you're looking at them.

So I'll move over briefly to our proposal.

I want to clarify one thing that Bill was mentioning.

He was showing you a green shape that looks kind of like, I guess, I don't even know what that looks like.

along and thin and looks like it has a handle of some kind.

We're actually only reclassifying about half of that, that the slopes continue along what becomes more of a defined stream further to our north and west.

So it's just really this about half of that shape or a little less than half of that shape.

So yeah, those slopes would continue down along this corridor through here.

The gray hatch here is our actual proposed slope reclassification.

And within that shape, you will see a myriad of slope characteristics, some less than 25%, some more than 25%.

It's very fluctuating within that outline.

I'm not gonna speak much about this.

I think Bill did a fine job that Disneyland's use

and our ability to use the land as it needs to be used is supportive of broader visions and initiatives within the county, including the comp plan and the economic development strategic plan.

And I just want to add a little bit on the historic imagery briefly.

We have gone to, I would say relatively great lengths to accurately represent and locate the historic imagery within our digital ecosystem.

And I reviewed it again today before I spoke tonight,

And I can say with a high degree of confidence that this historic photograph is properly located within our digital ecosystem and we feel relatively confident that portions of this

area defined as preserved slopes have been used to support agricultural activities in the past.

How heavily that weighs in, I'm not here to say, but I do know that we feel confident that in the past, this landscape has been materially altered by man to support man's activities.

I guess to summarize, our impacts really are relatively de minimis in some ways.

We're not impacting any floodplains,

or wetlands or existing structures, no impacts to housing or schools or playgrounds or those kinds of things.

It's relatively isolated and it's very specific in terms of what we have identified to be reclassified.

So it's not just a broad brush stroke.

We were very intentional on how we looked at it and how we've asked for this reclassification to be considered.

I got seven seconds left.

So thank you for hearing us out.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

That's right.

Yeah.

Bill was showing you the correct slope system.

Thank you very much.

A couple of questions.

There have been multiple concept plans.

There has, you know, AstraZeneca is working with, they've recently hired Jacobs Engineering to do their formal concept work.

They are in that stage now.

One of the things that had to be worked out from an engineering standpoint initially was

the interior, the internal road system for AstraZeneca.

And to support the big large truck deliveries, there was a real challenge from a slope standpoint.

And so from a topographical standpoint, we went ahead, the people that they had working dialed in what would be their future road system.

The grades were very difficult to make that work.

So that probably is the only thing that, unless there's some major significant change, that's pretty much etched in stone at this point.

And we're coordinating with them, for example, on the Boulders Road extension.

And initially where the truck entrance into AstraZeneca would go was identified as a potential queuing.

issue.

So there were some changes made at the intersection with Route 29, you know, as the new bowlers railway coming down that widen that added turn lanes in each direction.

And so that kind of took away the queuing problem because it was going to be

a complex problem if we had to move that truck entrance because of the geography or topographical challenges that represent there in that hilly area.

So that is the one thing that kind of got etched in.

And as Daniel said, they have changed their footprints number of times or even their concepts of how they're doing things.

They previously changed the footprint

of some of their outbuildings that basically have wastewater and the plant utilities building and things, but they moved it around while we were doing the tree clearing so that we could reduce the number of trees taken down by 22 acres.

And they decided to move their buildings around to accommodate that.

So they've been a real responsible and thoughtful partner as we go through this planning process.

Yes, I think so.

I think you've answered all my other questions.

I mean, that was sort of my biggest one, right, was what is the need for this?

It feels like a half an acre out of 172 is not significant.

Can we put whatever we need to put somewhere else?

You know, it seems like there's a lot of space here.

I just have one quick question.

So that significant engineering report that you presented there, you showed us, is that available to the public?

It can be made available, certainly.

I guess that's not been a published document.

It's part of what was produced during that stage.

All right, thank you.

If you don't have anything else, I don't think we have any other questions.

And now we invite any members of the public that are here

for this, speak to this matter.

Can't come up.

Okay.

Seeing none, we'll close public hearing and bring it back to the commissioner for any discussion.

Quiet Group tonight.

I think they've answered all our questions.

I do have a little bit of discussion.

I was waiting to see if anyone wanted to go first.

I think it's important to say that if we're going to make a decision

In the staff report, I want to direct people to the fifth and sixth page.

There's a section that specifically says about the availability of land for development as discussed in the comprehensive plan.

It's important to understand the limitations of the analysis.

The figures are estimates and the theoretical capacity measures the maximum development area of the development potential of the development areas.

The analysis also found that development projects often cannot realize their maximum development potential due to a variety of constraining factors.

These factors limit the actual build-out of the development areas, which undermines the growth management policy as well as other goals, such as the goals related to housing and economic development.

And then it goes on to say that, however, the demand for the forecasts or projections based on historical trends of development, it is expected that constraining factors, including the availability of land, cost of development, and environmental constraints will limit the build-out potential.

I expect as a commissioner that if we approve this type of adjustment for the county that we will continue to give this type of exception to the public as well to private developers when they're bringing things like housing and they want to make similar changes in order to provide

Maximizing the land for housing.

I think that if we set this precedent by approving it for the county, then we need to be ready to continue to do that in the future with other types of applications.

I think that's my biggest issue with the applicant is that with the request is that I don't feel good about giving favoritism to

Let me address a couple of those comments.

So we have in other applications approved changes to critical slopes or other, well not critical slopes, but

managed slopes to preserve slopes and vice versa to enable more development.

So one is we're not setting presents.

We always have to look at the merits of every single application.

So regardless of what we do for one does not mean that that is a precedent that we have now set for another, because we have to look at the merits of each one.

They're each independent of each other.

The other point I would make is that in the AC44, there are a number of factors that we've done

to try to maximize the development.

For one thing is looking at growth instead of net area of a development.

And the other is what Mr. Fritz alluded to is we are evaluating the critical slopes to see if there's some that maybe we've gone too far in our evaluation.

We can map better.

We have better technology for mapping.

And so that's also part of what we're doing.

So I think we're

So if there's any other.

Sure.

I couldn't agree more, and I was going to say the same thing.

This is, for me, it's case by case, and so me voting one way on this is not a blanket agreement across the board, and when I look at what's before me today, it appears to be a step in trying to align zoning with comprehensive plan, right?

Right now it's a misalignment.

The other thing that in this particular application, Mr. Fritz said that they're still evaluating the stream.

If that stream is viewed to be a perennial, then they will require the buffer and the protections of that stream.

So that's still an evaluation.

So, you know, I think that's part of why I feel that, okay, well, for now, given the information we have,

You know, I am fine moving forward with this, but there's more information coming in.

And I clearly am not stating that I think that your approval of this is a blanket.

I'm more wanting to point out that I think staff has included, in my opinion, the information here about

The challenges we face with the current growth management plan related to environmental factors and maximum build out.

And so I hope that as we go forward, the same statement will be used to support other types of applications that might do the same thing, not just ones that the county is presenting.

Do we have a motion?

Okay, I move to recommend approval of ZMA 2026-00004 for the reasons stated in the staff report.

Any further

Ms. Brown?

No.

Mr. Moore?

Aye.

Mr. Clayborne?

Aye.

Mr. Carrazana?

Aye.

And we are

Now moving to a work session for CTA 2022-2 zoning modernization phase two.

Get the committee report or can we get to the staff report, please?

She has to have everything plugged in.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, thank you.

Good.

Good evening members of the commission.

My name is Leah Brumfield.

I'm senior planner two in the zoning division of community development.

I'm joined here by interim zoning administrator, Francis McCall.

Today we are presenting the commission articles five overlay zoning districts and article six use tables, which are drafted under phase two of the zoning modernization project.

for a work session on those two articles.

Before we begin, a couple of notes, just because there is a lot here.

I will ask the commission to hold questions until the end, if at all possible, to avoid repetition.

of things that are going to be answered a little bit later in the presentation.

And also following up on the last work session that we had with the commission, I want to notate that on the use tables, we are using the P annotation as was generally agreed upon for permitted by right by administrative approval uses.

But just for ease of conversation, while we're talking about those uses, I will be using the term by right.

So starting off, we're doing a quick project background recap, and then a look at Article 5, which is one of the drafted ordinances that you received.

We'll explain the changes there, some of the reshuffling that we did, and then we'll go into Article 6, where we're looking at broad language changes, the formatting that moves all the uses into our new use tables.

and then go over a couple of more specific changes, uses that were consolidated, their names were just outright changed, things that are updated for clarity and current usage.

And then we're looking at some of the minor, more specific use permissions that staff is recommending be changed in this phase.

with guidance in the comprehensive plan for these particular changes and very low impacts for these changes.

So we'll be asking the commission for their feedback on our work session questions.

And then finally, we'll look at next steps of the project.

So the focus for this work session, our questions are, are these new use categories that we're presenting clear and intuitive?

Are the use table layouts and the formatting also clear and intuitive?

Do any of the terms read as ambiguous?

Could they easily be confused for a different use?

Are any of the changes recommended in the SHAP report in the list of use changes comprehensive with the goals and the vision of the comprehensive plan?

So also as we go through the presentation, we will be noting where some of the areas where staff have, as we've worked through the ordinance, noted that some regulations will need to be addressed in phase three.

And we're thinking about that as we're moving forward.

But if the commission has additional phase three topics that come up during this presentation, we'll have time allocated at the end of presentation to receive those topics.

And we would also ask if the commission could email those topics to staff to make sure we really have everything

Clear, and we can keep the presentation moving quickly.

So for anyone just tuning into the zoning modernization project, in phase one, we established the tone, the language style, and the ordinance format of the new drafts, and we worked with the Berkeley group to draft articles one, two, three, and ten of the new ordinance

which were the administration, general processes, nonconformities, sections of the ordinance.

Those were things that didn't really have any changes, didn't require any public input from staff or the general public.

And then this phase just basically laid out the framework for the rest of the project.

So those four articles were brought before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors in getting general approval.

but they were not adopted at that time because the entire ordinance is being reformatted in a way that requires a wholesale adoption of the entire thing.

Phase 2, which contains some of the articles that we're working on today, is focusing on rewriting the rest of the ordinance, so everything except 1, 2, 3, and 10, to bring those

new articles in line with those articles that we drafted in phase one in style and formatting and tone and language.

And in this phase, the zoning modernization staff had been working with other topic level expert staff to make sure that some of the trickier interpretations of complicated regulations like entrance corridor, floodplain overlay is correctly written into this simpler, more straightforward language with the new format.

Where possible, some regulations have been clarified or slimmed down, but without any substantive change to the processes or the regulations.

And also just to note that since phase two addresses the entirety of the zoning ordinance at the end of it, the articles are being brought to the Planning Commission a few articles at the time.

So we'll be bringing seven in another work session and then eight in another work session later on those two articles.

So today we're doing articles five and six.

And we are also anticipating that we're going to be bringing in some of the things that are being written now.

Article nine will be the form-based code.

We don't really see a lot of changes coming forward with that because we're trying to keep on top of writing that in the new ordinance style.

But at the end of bringing all those articles to the commission and the board, we will do our public work, our public hearings, and then we anticipate the ordinance being adopted in full and the new ordinance replacing our current ordinance in providing the new style, providing the new layout, providing the new format.

So then we're moving to phase three, which is the rewriting of the regulations to bring them more in alignment with the comprehensive plan.

And we do anticipate that after cleaning up the ordinance in phase two, phase three will be a lot more straightforward.

And so we are going to be looking for both lots of staff and then also public topic level expert input on these things that we're bringing forward.

We are trying to just bring the goals and alignment of the comprehensive plan into the zoning ordinance as that was prioritized by the Board of Supervisors with the actions that we did discuss earlier in the year.

So the staff and the public input in this phase is going to be focusing on the details of how we're enacting that direction from the board.

But we are pretty much set in our priorities and our overarching goals for phase three because of we're taking the comprehensive plan and then translating that into the zoning ordinance.

So then again, at the end of the phase three, we do anticipate the adoption of all these ordinance changes.

Here is just a brief outline of the ordinance as it's proposed.

We're working on articles five and six today, overlay zoning districts and use tables.

And just as a reminder for the project goals, we are looking to rewrite the ordinance for clarity and ease of use.

That's the number one focus of today's work session.

We are looking to streamline our administrative processes where it is possible.

We're going to be updating our regulations for modern best practices and then also aligning our ordinance with AC44's comprehensive plan.

The phase two goals focus primarily on those first two goal, first two parts of the overarching project goals.

Rewriting the ordinance to bring better formatting, plain language, consolidated and clarifying uses, a more streamlined ordinance, removing duplicative language that is self-executing or repeated in multiple places.

and also making any required Code of Virginia compliance updates so that we're not upsetting Richmond.

And then also simplifying our review process where it is possible.

These changes are not intended to be substantive policy changes.

So anywhere that phase two drafts do appear to contain policy changes at all, those changes are required by state law.

They're a clarification or a codification of something that has established longstanding practice, or it is a minor change, which in this instance would be highlighted for the commission's input.

So as I'm sure the commission has noted in review of the draft articles that we've provided, we do have a lot of work to do to bring the zoning ordinance into compliance with the comprehensive plan.

But to keep us on topic and productive today, the things that we're not looking at today are here.

We're not really looking at

Use permission changes, things like adding agricultural supportive uses to the rural area, increasing our density, reducing parking standards, or revisiting our dark skies ordinance.

That is later on in other sections of this project.

And again, just if the commission could email me those topics, because we're definitely going to be incorporating those things into our work, but we really want to keep on topic today.

So moving into Article 5, our overlay zoning districts, these regulations are currently in Article 3, Section 30 of our zoning ordinance right now.

So these overlay zoning districts turn into essentially the same with a more streamlined language format.

Each overlay zoning district is separated in its own subsection and the establishment application of each overlay is spelled out in a more consistent, clear way.

But the substance of all of these regulations has not changed.

The two things I did want to bring to the commission's attention are the new location of the floodplain administers powers and responsibilities.

We moved that into article two, which is one of the articles we did earlier.

It was also attached in the packet with the floodplain administrator new language highlighted because the establishment of the floodplain administrator isn't actually about the administration

of the floodplain.

It is how we designate who that is and what their powers and duties are, not what the regulations are if someone is applying for something in the floodplain, which is what the overlay district focuses on.

So I also wanted to highlight the reservation within the entrance quarter regulations.

We have a resolution of intent that was approved by the board to create a different regulation regarding outdoor sales storage and display in the entrance corridor, which is currently in my special use permit only.

We're looking

writing that right now, and I'm will be updating this section when we get more direction on how that CTA is going, whether it's adopted before this ordinance, whether that language is going to be incorporated into this change, or whether we're just going to wait and adopt it separately later.

So that is reserved in the current draft in front of you.

But it will be cleaned up later.

And then just a quick listing of some of the things that we did see when we were going through the Article 5 language, things that staff noticed we would need to look at further in Phase 3 were some things along the discussion of scenic highways, which I know is something that we've talked about as a new ZTA.

We have also talked about a potential standardization of the entrance corridor depth across properties.

It's a little bit complicated to even explain right now and that's something that could be simplified.

and then also working with our county engineer.

There is an additional floodway category that should be in our ordinance.

That is not.

It's called Zone A.

It's not in the regulatory floodway or in the floodway fringe, but it is a floodway category.

So it should be in there, but we need to do a little more investigation into that.

and then also further clarifications within the Flood Hazard Overlay District just in general.

There are some things there that are a little obtuse and could be explained a little better.

But again, that's something that would require a lot more investigation.

So Article 6 has, I think, a lot of

The focus of this work session, because this is the article that consolidates all the lists of uses across all of our district sections.

Uses are currently listed under each district.

and also spread throughout some different sections of the ordinance.

Some of it is in section four, which is basic regulations, things that are accessory or that apply in all districts.

And then some use permissions are actually hidden in our current section five supplement regulations.

It's written within the supplement regulations, but you have to know where it is in order to get to it to know that you can do it or to know that you can't do it.

So that makes looking for these permissions a little tricky.

And our table format that we're proposing here is a much more modern, widely accepted, user-friendly approach to these lists.

So we did make that change.

That's the biggest change.

And then also we consolidated a lot of the uses and we updated all of their names for consistency and for clarity.

So here's the visualization that shows the basic change of the language brought into Article 6.

This is our current section 13.2.1 by right uses in R1.

And then that changes into our district tables.

A lot easier to read, a lot cleaner.

Our notations here are P for permitted by right with administrative approval, SP for special use permit required, AC for accessory uses, and then blank if the use is not permitted.

So other than the formatting change, the simplest changes in the article six was the language updates.

These uses are listed in attachment five of the work session memo, but I've highlighted a few of them here to show you the general trends and a couple of specific uses.

One consistent change along many uses was to divide the uses that are primarily the same, but different in their permissions, which sometimes was

Again, written into the definition or written into supplementary regulations saying that this is the use, but it also if it's this way, it needs a special use permit.

So now it's actually in front and pulled out.

One of the changes that we made here that you'll see is a consistency of intensity differentiation, where something that is a use that is less intense, that has fewer impacts, is a minor version of that.

It's something that has more impacts, that is more intense, that's a major version of that use.

So home occupations major, home occupations minor, seasonal farm worker housing, major and minor, and then renewable energy systems as well, major and minor, that list is in the ordinance.

One thing I did want to pull out is kind of an example of where the language is hidden in section five, supplementary regulations.

Our regulations in that section specify that anywhere a club or lodge is permitted, a gun club or shooting range is permitted, but requires a special use permit.

and that is the only place that that is listed in the ordinance.

So we updated that language in the table, pulling the use clubs and lodges into the two uses listed clubs and lodges is the one and then gun clubs and shooting ranges is the second use.

This is not a change in permission.

This is not any kind of difference between our previous ordinance.

It's just much clearer now what is permitted.

So, um,

This is actually accomplishing one of the aims of phase two, making what our ordinance says clearer so that we can make decisions as we're moving forward and be very deliberate on our decisions on what things should be permitted where.

So this will be something, this would be the kind of thing that we would be able to address in phase three.

So again, as you may have noticed on a prior slide, a few of the language updates also included consolidation, bringing together a lot of uses under one name.

This is done where uses are essentially the same.

We're focused more on regulating the impact and the nature of the use as opposed to the individual type of musical instrument or optical goods that are being sold in individual stores.

So the majority of these are really very straightforward.

We have our renewable energy systems, which are the minor ones, are the smaller ones that have less impact and less acreage size.

And then the larger ones are ones that have more acreage and a larger impact.

Our public uses are currently listed in a giant laundry list of different uses.

And this just consolidates them all to public use of services and utilities.

And again, there's no permission change here.

Everything is the same currently that is allowed.

It's just given a different name or it's categorized together with other things that have the exact same permissions.

Additionally, some other ones that shortened the ordinance by a great deal were consolidating all of our office types.

Again, no change in use permissions on all of those.

Consolidating our light industrial uses.

Again, no impact on where those are permitted.

And then consolidating heavy manufacturing and processing.

One thing that you'll note is that some of the uses that could theoretically fit under some of these categories, like wholesale distribution and warehousing could easily be light industrial.

but the use permissions there were different than the overarching light industrial category.

So those were pulled out separately and they're named in the table separately.

So it's a little bit less efficient but it is not changing any of the actual permissions that way.

Consolidating all those would be something we could consider in phase three saying actually there isn't a reason to separate this thing out.

It should be permitted the same in all of the districts.

So that would be something that we would look at at that point.

Also, our retail and commercial uses were greatly consolidated.

We had over 25 different named retail uses, plus all the different derivations of those different types of retail uses, but they're all selling things to customers.

This was separated into three different categories, where we have the retail sales and service general, things that you think of going into a strip mall, a shopping center or downtown retail area.

And then also, we currently have in the ordinance, a use that is described as, oh, sorry.

No.

There we go.

A use that is described as retail stores and shops on a single floor compatible with the residential characteristics of the district with a gross floor area not exceeding 4,000 square feet.

And that use becomes our neighborhood retail and services.

So the use performance standards for this use, which is one of the things we're going to be working with staff on in the next few months, is going to be likely a square footage limitation.

But really what we're looking for here is

Retail uses that are small have individual customers coming in that are not business-to-business type stores and that are not large format like department stores or anything storing a volatile or a caustic type chemical, something that could theoretically be located in a neighborhood.

So these uses are currently permitted by special use permit in R10, R15, and then also discussed in the downtown Crozet district.

And so that these uses are also permitted, of course, in larger commercial areas.

They're not excluded, but they are the only retail uses that are permitted in our residential districts currently through special use permit or through downtown Crozet district.

So that is something that we consolidated that we changed a little bit that we're looking at maybe in future maybe in phase three when we're looking at diversifying some of our uses in our residential districts that could be something that we would consider making either by right in those districts or expanding the special use permit permissions in other districts like maybe R6 and R4 as well.

That would be one of the things that we would investigate at that point.

And then finally, we did create a commercial site intensive commercial category.

And as we know, in that definition, these are uses that generally aren't contained within a building.

They're more intensive.

These are ones that are currently only permitted in the highway commercial and industrial districts.

But again, consolidating all those does not change any of the permissions.

So as we're looking, we have something to think about for the additional research and discussion on uses, the community designs, the density, all of these things that are coming to mind when we're going through all of these articles.

But right now we really are focusing just on the non-substantive uses and then streamlining the administrative processes and bringing the minor changes to the forefront.

So those become minor changes that we've been referring to.

Very small, there's only these three really here.

Removing a couple of uses from the rural areas zoning district, crematoriums and outdoor drama theaters.

Combining agricultural museums and historical centers into a single use.

And then also removing livestock sales from industrial districts.

This is a little bit changing the use permissions, but these are very minor uses that don't really have any impact on current operation of any businesses in the county and

do align better with the comprehensive plan so currently crematoriums are permitted under funeral homes in commercial districts of the county which seems a little bit more logical than the rural area district giving traffic and the necessity of proximity to urban centers and then looking at agricultural and historical centers these are largely permitted the same there's some minor differences in residential districts

Combining them does make that change, but their primary goals, the description of how these two uses are currently treated in the ordinance, really focuses on the history of the county.

It focuses on the general history or it focuses on the agricultural history, so it is logical that these two be treated the same.

And then finally, for the use of livestock sales, it's currently explicitly listed only in industrial districts, but it is a type of use that is permitted at agricultural operations in the rural area, which is more logical.

Our industrial districts in the comprehensive plan do not describe any kind of agricultural sales, which is in line with what you would expect in an agricultural district.

So this is just bringing that into line and it is not something that we have received any applications for in a very, very long time.

Looking back at Article 6, some of the things that we did note that we will be looking at in Phase 3, we do of course have things like mixed use

in multiple districts, increased density, looking at our parking regulations, looking at which kinds of parking we allow, which kinds of parking we encourage, our adaptive reuse potentials for commercial structures, and then going across, just across, looking at village residential use permissions, rural area supportive uses, all of these kinds of things.

So our upcoming dates that we have, we have a couple of additional work sessions with the commission and the board coming up as we continue doing our drafting work.

And you can kind of see that at the same time, we are working on scoping for the phase three projects, sorry, the phase three topics.

We're looking at building our expert topic groups to have those discussions.

And then after we adopt

The Phase 2 section of all of the changes, then we will be drafting the Phase 3 sections.

That will of course continue past July 2027, but that's as far as the slide will go.

So our next steps in brief, we are continuing general outreach, continuing our public education.

We will be drafting our new cleaned up language, scheduling staff meetings right now with experts on our grading and our lighting standards, and then building our topic based discussion groups and then our public hearings.

So returning to our work session focus questions, looking at our category names, our table layouts, our term definitions, and our term names, and then changes that are recommended for the use permissions.

Do we want, Chair, how would we like to do this?

I mean, many of them are related, so I'm not sure that you necessarily need to go in order.

I would open it up to the commissioners and talk about anyone in particular.

Maybe you might want to mix a couple of them in your comments.

I mean, basically, we're looking for comments on this phase, and I'll just remind everybody that

The third phase that's coming is really where the meat of this is.

And we've started some dialogue already in terms of how to best review that material, how soon we can get it, maybe even do some early conversations if needed.

Opening it up.

Mr.

Chair, just really quick, could I ask a question that's not based on these four bullets, but it was in your presentation, and it was around the expert topic groups.

Sure.

So we're looking at building groups of people for different topics.

So someone looking at

Lighting standards, we would talk to some developers and builders and dark sky experts and have a conversation with them what is reasonable to expect for this topic.

These are our goals.

How can we better meet our goals based on your industry?

And it's really looking at what is doable based on what we already have as our primary

Ames, and then saying, okay, this is our aim.

How do we do that, that it's a reasonable expectation for the things that you are an expert in?

So same thing with other topics like grading, we would talk to engineers and our developers, and

Sorry, those are the ones that are on the forefront because that's what I'm looking at right now.

But those would be those groups that we would pull in and have discussions on.

These are our proposals.

What do you think?

Do you have suggestions?

That all makes sense.

I'll just throw one in there that I think you were involved with, Commissioner Clayborne, design standards.

So we had some conversation around that, form-based codes.

And so that's a similar process.

That all makes sense.

So

You know, I think the question in general, what I hear is, is this intuitive?

Is it easy to read?

Is that, you know, is there need for sort of clarification?

And I do have sort of a question that came up for me when I was trying to work my way through the use tables.

So one of the attachments in the application is the drafted uses definitions.

No, I think I misspoke.

Okay.

So so then the application is correct.

It's removing it from highway commercial.

Right?

Yes.

And then, but in the definitions page, and I just want to make sure I'm understanding how to read it all there.

It doesn't actually list livestock sales as one of the definitions.

It's more like it groups it with animal sales.

Yeah, so that is one of the things that's currently listed under agricultural operation events.

And that is not a definition that I anticipate changing.

So let me make sure I understood.

So you said agricultural, agricultural operation events, operation events, or use operational uses or operation?

There's two different ones.

Service occupation.

It's not in the attached definitions.

It's in the ordinance that already exists on the county website right now.

So one, I guess this is sort of leading me to my question is that what I understand from the new chart, which I like, we're only listing the uses that are somehow either permitted one way or another for each category, right?

So agricultural, we wouldn't list a use that has no use in agricultural, it's just omitted, right?

So what's the total number of uses that

You know, I have not counted them all, but it is fewer than there were.

The drafted definitions, it also didn't feel like a complete list of definitions.

Yeah, that's a good clarification.

The drafted definitions are only the newly proposed ones.

Yes.

But and you foresee the drafted definitions, the new ones that would then be included with a total list in the final draft.

I'm interested eventually to know how many we got, you know, like did we go from 500 to, you know, 50 or what?

Yeah, I think that's a really good point.

We've done that before where we've kind of highlighted here's kind of the changes by numbers, if you will.

Here's what we did and the number of words reduced and the number of definitions or consolidations that we've made.

I think that at some point that would be helpful to go through.

Sure, I'll ask a question and then pass it off and keep going.

But around the first question there, and I was curious, you had the slide with the language updates.

The new language, is that, I'm just assuming that's common vocabulary that's used within the space.

So if I went to several different localities, that would be common language I would see.

That's how we came up with most of them.

There are some that are Albemarle-isms.

So we do have some things that are very particular.

But the majority of our use names, and this is just a truism of planning and zoning in general, there's no consistency.

We went and looked at something that is used in multiple other places.

or it is logical that it would make sense, something that tracks very closely with something else.

So I think the first thing that comes to mind is the neighborhood retail, neighborhood sales and service.

And that is actually pretty close to something that Charlottesville has, which is neighborhood supporting sales and service.

But it's just like a little bit shorter.

and there's multiple versions of that kind of name all across Virginia, neighborhood-focused services or local small business services and they're all getting at that same idea, but there isn't really anything consistent.

Sure, there is just because a lot of the language that they updated is more modern, it is the general standard.

So we didn't specifically go to match Charlottesville one for one, but it was always

in the lineup of researched locations to compare, well, this is what our term is.

What's this other term in another locality?

How do these two compare?

Thank you.

Thanks.

And thanks for all the work you guys have been putting in on us.

It's certainly an improvement over what exists right now on the website and sort of public code.

The table layouts and formatting, yeah, I found pretty clear and intuitive.

And just for yucks, even though nobody at all asked me to, I ran the attachment five, section five rather through the Hemingway Readability Calculator.

And y'all came in at about grade 11 or 12, which is a little high, but you know,

They found 47 sentences that are very hard to read.

But I think that's just going to kind of be the case for any sort of policy.

But I was kind of looking at it like, yeah, it is kind of hard to read some of these long sentences, you know, grading or other land disturbing activity, including trenching or tunneling, except as necessary to construct tree wells or tree walls must not occur within the drip line of any trees or wood.

It goes on from there.

You know.

I don't know how far down the readability path you want to go, but there are some that are still pretty long and complex sentences with a lot of subordinate clauses.

But overall, improvement, don't get me wrong, is great.

I wanted to talk a little about the matrix of uses and attachments, or rather Article 6.

Somewhere in the preamble of Article 6, I wonder if we might include a list of what all those zoning category abbreviations are

Just because I was looking at it, I was like, what is MHD in VR?

And I realized what it was once I kind of got to looking at it.

But that kind of thing, I didn't see at the start of Article 6.

That's a good point.

Yeah.

That might be one thing.

The question on crematoriums being removed from RA.

Listen, I don't think there's exactly a huge demand for crematoriums per se, but I was just thinking that they're often attached to cemeteries.

Yeah, so that would be permitted anywhere the the

Makes sense.

Okay, cool.

Cool.

And in the uses too, and this is maybe just something I don't remember, but it's permitted everywhere.

No, it's just, it's not a presentation.

Sorry.

I will, I'll go back.

I have, I was going to share the uses table.

No, the presentation works.

Sorry.

Oh, no, it's OK.

I was looking through the uses matrix, and there's one that I couldn't remember what it means.

It's special lots, which is permitted almost everywhere.

Yeah, so special lots are in this,

It would be great if I could pull up the definition and show it to you.

But it is defined in that consolidation list.

It's things that are lots that don't otherwise necessarily have a primary use on them, but that we do need to permit.

Things like stormwater management that's on a site plan, things like

green spaces for a residential neighborhood.

That's a park.

The park isn't the primary use, the residences surrounding it are the primary use, but this is a special lot that we allow.

Yeah, that helps.

It's also includes things like that may not meet minimum lot size for a district that are for that, you know, that when you're creating a lot, it's that's the requirement is to for all the lots to meet the minimum lot size, but

It gives that exemption not to be those sizes that are identified.

Another one that comes up a lot are private streets.

I wonder if that one, I mean almost all the uses in the use matrix are pretty clear.

Okay then never mind.

That's probably true.

I do want to still though

Pour one out for the uses that we're losing, like typesetting, etching and engraving, and pool halls and milk dispensaries.

We'll pour out some milk for the lost uses.

But in all seriousness, there's one other one I did want to bring up and that I continue to find it sort of strange that Monticello gets two of its own zoning category uses that are specific to Monticello.

And I do want to give you credit for reducing that from like a whole page in the current one, but

So the Monticello Scholar Residences aren't actually seasonal housing.

They rent them or award them for renting, especially to professors or for fellowships.

It's at Monalto.

Yes.

Or there's some at Monalto.

I think there's some at Morven.

Oh, yeah.

And they don't meet density at all.

So that's why they're their own carve out.

And then the Monticello itself has additional permissions other that a normal agricultural museum would not allow would not be allowed.

I think this looks really great.

It looks so concise and clean.

I think it's so smart to change those classes into major and minor that apply across the board.

I like the designation of the neighborhood category and

consolidation of the kind of the retail uses and the office space.

They definitely do, yes.

Okay.

Because they're like, there's some categories that have so many things and then some like Monticello that are so specific.

I just didn't know if I was missing anything.

That was the first one.

Sure.

I'll make a comment around the table layouts.

And first I'll say, I think it looks really good.

So you can take this comment.

If you don't like it, say, Corey, go kick sand.

Feelings aren't hurt.

But when I was looking at it, you might think about, perhaps, if it might make it easier on people's eyes, if the P is just like a check and not permitted, instead of it being blank, is this the X?

Is this something, I don't have to compute.

So it's really only two categories, the AC and the special use permit.

And I can easily look at, if I see a check just organically, I know I'm good.

And the X means do not proceed opposed to looking at it with this, what does a blank mean again?

Or, and maybe this is thrown in another proportion, but for me, that could be something that would help improve it.

But I think it's really good as is.

Just some general comments and accolades.

I mean, I think there's a tremendous amount of work that went in here and we appreciate that.

I know the Berkeley group spent a lot of time as well with you guys and appreciate their work as well.

In general, I would agree with your four bullet points here.

I think you're hitting the mark.

I would ask in terms of the readability that Commissioner Moore brought up.

When you talk about those expert groups that you're setting up for individual focused areas, I wonder if you also do one at the larger scale, just looking at readability

And if you bring in some folks, maybe even members of the public, I see one in particular that we have out there today that we see here every now and then.

Maybe there's some volunteers, folks that are very engaged with our process that might

give it a review and give you some of their feedback.

Because I think it can, again, everything can always get a little bit better there and take it for the same, there's tremendous amount of work here and I think it's definitely hitting in the right direction.

But perhaps there's a little bit more refinement that can happen and there may be members of the public, people that are active with

Can I go back to one comment about the crematorium?

And I'm sure you already have, but I just wonder if it's worth one more look at other areas and how those are classified.

I think in some more urban areas, those might be located in an industrial area.

They're places that are crematoriums that aren't associated with cemeteries and funeral homes.

And having just gone through the process of looking one for that pet who died, there's, you know, one of the most active ones for animals is actually in an agricultural area that's north of us outside of Albemarle County, which I assume would be like a rural agricultural area.

and that might be like a type of crematorium that you might not have thought of.

Look into that.

Any other questions on the phase two?

I just want to, Nathan, you may have missed this.

In the attachments where the definitions were, she couldn't pull it up, but is the complete definition of the special lot, which might help answer your question.

Well, and everything wasn't there.

Right.

Yeah, exactly.

Right.

Yeah, so.

Thank you.

And we're looking forward to phase three.

I did want to just give the commission a moment.

If there were things that come up, they were like, oh, nope, she said not to bring this up.

She said not to bring this up.

I think your offer of sending, you know, there are some things that we're picking up as there is a lot in that, in that packet that was sent out.

So there's some things that you're seeing and you want to send an email, please do so.

Why don't we just send it to the Planning Commission email that we use.

We should have a longer list of people on that.

Yep.

Thank you for that.

What was the work session?

I did want to make a comment too that's not directly towards staff because I think like everybody else I'd echo just the terrific changes that are overall there and thank you for answering my questions and clarifying so well.

But I just noticed the part in there about individual manufactured homes which we now have a new state law that allows those on anywhere else that a regular single-family home can be built.

which is great in terms of the potential for affordable housing where local ordinances actually are at play.

It still doesn't actually change anything about HOA restrictions and we've got miles and miles and miles of HOAs where you can't build a single

Backyard Cottage.

And when we approve our developments at this dais, or rather recommend approval, and then when the board approves them, we're requiring developers to put in HOAs.

And those restrictions that come with so many HOAs often completely contradict what we say we want in our comp plan.

We want to encourage in-field development, but we can't.

There's no one in this county who's able to build something like that.

And so I think just, again,

I'm not the first person to suggest this or point out this analysis, but taken as a whole HOA restrictions tend to be very exclusive.

They exclude certain kinds of people.

And if you don't have the green, you can't cross the line.

I also think it makes it more expensive.

Yeah.

Okay.

Moving on to committee reports.

We have it.

And thank you, Leah Stapp.

No reports.

Yeah, quiet summer.

All right, Mr. Barnes, can you give us

the Board of Supervisors meeting for July 15th.

Is it more than just July 15th?

Is that the only one?

Because the board only meets once in July.

So that's why you're thinking that.

And it was actually a fairly light agenda.

Ms. Shepherd from the VDOT Charlottesville residency came and gave us a report.

some of the work that they're doing.

And really the only matter that was of interest probably of the Planning Commission was that Margaret Malaszewski has worked a zoning text amendment with the board and that is to allow rooftop solar

would be a certificate of a county-wide certificate which means that it'll go in as a use that they can promulgate regulations for that if the applicant basically informs those regulations that that can be put on to the building.

and not regulated by the ARB.

It'd be something that would be reviewed by staff, but not by the ARB.

It's a way of trying to streamline something.

There's 13 other items that are in the ordinance that are currently have that status.

And so that was passed by the board.

That was a short.

Yeah, I kind of stretch it out if you want.

Well, Mr. Chairman, historically throughout the year, we'll find strategic moments to bring in

presentations from other county agencies, things that are relevant to what we're working on.

In that vein too, I think I brought this up a month ago at our meeting, some stats from the Weldon Cooper Center at UVA about commuter patterns and how we're growing our number of jobs more than our number of residents working here.

And so we're increasing the number of people each year who have to commute from outside.

Actually, Ms. Pethia submitted her resignation.

I think it's 21st of this month.

You know, it's an interesting point because I was talking with some folks about, I'd mentioned when I took the certified planning commissioner course, one of the presentations that was given was from an organization known as Housing Forward Virginia, which is maybe somehow related to Virginia housing, but they've also spoke at the

the planning district commission, you know, um, before, but that information was very helpful.

Great.

Well, we don't have anything else.