Board of Supervisors Regular Second Meeting; and Set CY2020 Tax Rate   4/15/2020

This meeting is being held pursuant to and in compliance with emergency ordinance number 20-E2, an emergency ordinance to ensure the continuity of government during the COVID-19 disaster.

The supervisors who are electronically present at this meeting are myself, Ned Galloway, supervisor Diantha McKeel,

of the Jack Jouett District, Supervisor Liz Palmer of the Samuel Miller District, Supervisor Donna Price of the Scottsville District, Supervisor Bea LaPisto-Kirtley of the Rivanna District and Supervisor Ann Mallek of the White Hall District.

are the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County.

The opportunities for the public to access and participate in the electronic meeting are posted on the Albemarle County website, on the Board of Supervisors homepage, and on the Albemarle County calendar.

And I'd also like to note that those who typically join us at the dais are also participating electronically.

And at this time, we are going to all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you board.

And the next item, if everyone would please join in a moment of silence.

And board, we'll need a motion to adopt the final agenda.

This also includes if there's any items that we need to pull from consent.

Sorry, I had to get my unmute off.

And after we pass the consent agenda then we will go ahead and just address that item right there.

Sure.

It'll be brief.

So with that, can someone make a motion to adopt the final agenda as amended?

I would like to make an addition.

Just at the end under discussion from Matters to the Board, I would just like to ask if people have any other questions resulting from information they received from our tenants who have leases with the county.

Thank you.

So that's the second item.

Excuse me.

If you want items to discuss at the very end of the meeting,

I have a transit discussion I'd like to have.

It'll be pretty brief, but just to make folks aware of a transit situation.

Got it.

Any other additions or changes?

I move that we adopt the final agenda as amended.

Second was?

Bea, Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Ms.

Palmer?

Yes.

Ms.

Price?

Aye.

Mr. Galloway?

Yes.

Ms.

Ms.

Next item on the agenda are brief announcements by board members.

I'll go through every one.

If you have announcements, it would be your chance to do so.

I do.

Ned, are you going to come back to the item that I pulled?

Okay, that's fine.

That's perfect.

I do.

I have a couple of announcements.

The first one is I want to just remind folks once again

to see if they can find the plastic wars.

And that was the documentary that I talked about several weeks ago about plastic recycling.

Cause I think we may be having some discussions before too long around plastic.

And I would love for everybody to take a time to see if they can't find this.

It was on NPR and

it is the title is Plastic Wars and it's about how the plastic industry greenwashed recycling and I would encourage you to see if you can find it.

If you're looking for it and you can't let me know and I'll see if I can help.

The other announcement that I have is today the recipients were announced for the 2020 Emily Couric Scholarships and obviously

This great organization usually has a luncheon, and the recipients are announced.

And that had to be canceled this year.

So if you go to the Emily Couric leadership website, you can see a write-up about all the recipients and the announcement.

It's really a great website.

But I wanted to just point out that the recipients, the ones that were announced today, Isabel

Izzy Pardue of Albemarle High School is the 2020 Emily Couric Leadership winner, the $50,000 scholarship winner.

And Taylor Mills of Murray High School is the Merit Award winner who receives $20,000 from the organization.

There are other eight finalists who are receiving $10,000 apiece.

And in an effort to save some time,

I won't read off all those names, but if you go to the website, you can see every single one of them and a picture of them, and it's great information to have.

So congratulations to all the winners.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Supervisor McKeel.

I just wanted to, a little clarity, and maybe Diantha will correct me, but I did watch the plastic wars and what the industry has

Whitewashed or greenwashed the plastic recycling.

But I did want to say I believe it's a front line on PBS and not an NPR radio.

Is that what you meant?

Oh, you're muted.

Well, the information that I received and what I pulled down said that it was NPR and an American University production.

Okay.

And you're exactly right, you can't find it on radio NPR.

So I thank you for the correction because

It, I probably, if you're looking for it, you're not gonna find it on NPR radio.

It's on, what it's on is the Frontline website.

Right, and I actually pulled it up on VPM World, which is one of our stations here, is how I actually saw it.

And the only other thing that I'll mention on that same line, I sent an email out to the board just, we have a whole plethora of things that we now have control over.

The General Assembly has given us control over.

And so I know we're going to have future discussions about a whole variety of things that are very important.

But one of those things is the ability of localities to tax plastic bags.

That's it.

Thank you, Supervisor Palmer.

Not right now.

Thank you.

Oops, let me get my, there we go.

Thank you.

Just a couple, I really appreciate all the work that our citizenry is doing and our staff is doing to support it, to keep everybody at home and staying away from each other.

I did

have listened in to a conversation this morning that Leo had with his cardiologist who said this week and next week they feel are terribly risky for transmission.

And the week after that, very high infection things.

This is what they're anticipating is the hot time is really coming for us locally here.

And so I really want to encourage everybody to really buckle down, wear your masks, do all those good prevention things so that we can get through this as well as we can.

where there's information being shared and I appreciate all the work that Emily Kilroy and Jake Washburn are doing to share information about how people can get their absentee ballots and sign those up.

There's a bit of confusion on the application form, too many words and not enough direction on what the state provides and Jake has tried to clarify so if people do have questions they can just call up and get the exact word and he's going to send out a screenshot template that people can

We can also circulate to our citizenry so that they'll have the easiest way to get their absentee ballots for the June election and well in time.

And I guess that's all I have right now.

All announcements are done and that will bring us to the consent agenda.

We did pull item 6.2.

If someone could please make a motion to approve the consent agenda minus 6.2.

Very good.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Ms.

Ms.

Price?

Aye.

Mr. Galloway?

Yes.

Ms.

Ms.

Very good.

Item 6.2 is the resolution of intent to amend the zoning ordinance to allow landscape contractors in the rural areas.

Thank you.

I just wanted to point out, and I am supportive, I'm not going to vote against this, I'm supportive of this coming to us,

But just to point out once again, just as we had with the leash law and with the parking on the secondary roads, we cannot look at everything from the lens of or through the lens of the rural area and the development area.

And so when this comes back to us, I'm going to be asking for us to view it through very specific performance standards,

minimum lot sizes because we have neighborhoods that are in the rural area but very much urban ring neighborhoods.

And so we have to look at it not exactly through the lens of a development area and a rural area ordinance.

And I did talk to Greg about this.

Just being sensitive when this ordinance is developed, as Diantha said, I think the hydraulic road area, Georgetown road areas are good examples where they are fairly urbanized rural areas and quite different from

Just to give you an example, and then I'll stop.

On Hydraulic Road, we have a neighborhood that is a small neighborhood, but because it's in the rural area, I'm getting complaints because one of the

And it's designated rural area.

So it's perfectly within their rights.

So we need to, I just want to make sure when we look at this ordinance that we look at it through the lens, not through the lens of absolutely rural and development areas, that's all.

And the other thing I would add is that this would be a really good time

to look at marrying our home occupations in the development area, and I've mentioned this before, to some of our ordinances.

Because what we don't want to do is have our home occupation ordinances mismatch with what our other ordinances are.

We need to marry them together so they're not in conflict with each other.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I would only support this and have been working on sort of seeing this on the periphery for several years as a special permit rather than by right.

I do not think it's being considered by right at all because of all those individual characteristics that every neighborhood may not be a good place for anything.

And I think a lot of this is already available in the urban area, but it is not allowed in the

rural area.

So where those particular locations happen, where it's completely suitable, depending on what's going on around it, the highway depot right there or something like that, then it might be something really, really useful.

And I think it will possibly allow some places where some of these folks who cannot park their machinery or should not be parking the machinery in their urban neighborhood had a place to put it.

So that's the goal that I have.

But definitely, it has to have all the special permit characteristics to make sure that we're answering all those questions first.

Very good.

I move we approve the resolution of intent to amend the zoning ordinance to allow landscape contractors in the rural area.

Okay, the motion was made by Supervisor McKeel.

I believe that was Supervisor Price who made the second.

Yes.

Ms.

Palmer?

Yes.

Ms.

Price?

Aye.

Mr. Galloway?

Yes.

Ms.

Ms.

The next item on our agenda today, number seven, approval of calendar year 2020 tax rates.

And Lori, are you giving us an introduction here?

Or other?

Yes, I'm just jumping into the conversation.

Thank you.

It's all yours.

All right.

All right.

This item is the approval of calendar year 2020 tax rates.

Background on March 5, the Board authorized the advertising of a 0.854 per 100 real estate tax rate for the 2020 calendar year, which is also sometimes referred to as a tax year.

On April 13, 2020, the Board held a public hearing on the calendar year 2020 tax rates.

The real estate tax rate, the proposed rate is 0.854 per 100 of assessed value.

Each penny on the real estate tax rate yields about 2.1 million in estimated collectible real estate tax revenues.

The lowered or effective tax rate would be 0.826 per 100 of assessed value.

Staff's recommendation is the board approves a resolution to set the calendar year 2020 tax rates.

All right, Board, if we wish to make, well, let me do a pass on questions, well, questions or comments, and we can go in the order we've established.

Supervisor Price?

I have more a comment than a question, and Lori, if you could go back one slide, please,

Yeah, it's right in the middle bullet there.

Each penny on the real estate tax rate yields about $2.1 million in revenue.

And I recognize that.

And I am going to support this tax rate.

But I and perhaps other supervisors have received emails, one I received very shortly before the board itself, asking basically several types of questions, one of which is, why doesn't the county lower the tax rate?

And I'm going to make a statement but leave it open, Laurie, if you or Mr. Richardson, if you want to add to that.

And I think that explains the complexity of changing the tax rate.

For each penny that we drop it, it's about $2.1 million in estimated revenues.

But the other thing that we'll have to look at as we move forward is the effect of the economic situation on

real estate values, which if they decline will on their own similarly result in a reduction of revenues.

And the reduction of revenues then affects the ability of the county to provide the essential services that we need.

And so, again, my comment is not so much specifically on your presentation, Ms.

Allshouse, and I appreciate that, but just as a comment and an observation for our citizens who are listening,

on what the impact ends up being.

And it basically is a direct correlation between reduced revenues and reduced ability to provide our essential services.

All right.

No questions at this time.

All right, if there are no other questions or comments, then there would need to be a motion to approve the tax rate.

I can go ahead and do it.

I move that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia does hereby

My little thing is covering that set.

That word must be set.

I'm sorry.

Set the county levy of calendar year 2020 for general county purposes at 185.410 on every $100 for assessed value of real estate

2.85.4 on every $100 of assessed value of manufactured homes, mobile homes, 3.85.4 on every $100 for assessed value of public service property, 4.00.28 on every $100 of assessed value of personal property,

$4.28 on every $100 for assessed value of business personal property that is not classified as machinery and tools, merchant's capital, or short-term rental property with an original cost of less than $500.

And 6, $4.28 on every $100 for assessed value of machinery and tools.

Mr. Chair, I believe on number three, Supervisor Palmer made a slight misstatement.

I'm sorry?

I believe she said 85 and four cents as opposed to 85 and four tenths.

Four tenths.

So I just want to clarify the record.

Thank you.

With 85 and four tenths, that's number three.

Thank you, Supervisor Palmer.

So for clarification, the motion was amended for four tenths sentence on item number three.

I did hear that as well.

And is there any further discussion, Supervisors?

Ms.

Ms.

Ms.

Price?

Aye.

Mr. Galloway?

Yes.

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Mallek?

All right, very good.

The tax rate is set.

That motion passes.

The next item on our agenda today is number eight, authorization to execute an economic development agreement for a public-private partnership with Albemarle Business Campus.

And I believe we have Roger Johnson with us today.

Mr. Chair, Doug Walker, Deputy County Executive.

And as the PowerPoint gets loaded, I'm going to make a few introductory comments just to kind of set the stage.

There's been some questions most recently about the order of things and the extent to which that this public-private partnership is being considered in advance of an upcoming consideration of the rezoning request.

I thought that I would take just a few minutes to engage with the board and with the public that's listening that this is consistent with our recent practice as we have considered other public-private partnerships in association with rezoning requests.

Most recently the Barnes Lumber Project and the Southwood Project and recognizing that both of those had

of the private partnerships considered by the board in advance of the consideration of the rezoning request.

And it's been our position with board support that that is the proper order of things, recognizing that the agreement, if it's approved by the board, does not bind the board and actually is contingent upon the future decision to approve the rezoning.

The county attorney can speak more definitively to some aspects of this.

There's been a concern about making sure that we avoid any appearance of or actual contract zoning.

And so the preference has been and the commitment has been and as is played out specifically

to make sure that the public partnership arrangements have been complete, approved before then the matter of the rezoning then is brought forward through the Planning Commission and ultimately through the Board of Supervisors.

I think there's plenty of opportunity to consider the other aspects as it relates to the rezoning, but I did want to at least engage right up front with our understanding of the concern that's been expressed

and the position that we're taking that we think this is the right order and certainly can engage either now or later after the presentation on any sentiments on a part of the board or others.

That's all I have on that particular issue, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, David.

Yes, I do.

Are you suggesting, Doug, that this is actually the proper way that we should continue to do these or just sort of the way it worked out on the barn slumber and this one?

I kind of have a hard time putting Southwood into that category because it was such a unique and larger and different situation.

So

Well, it is the way that we have done it.

I would suggest that it is a proper way to clear out the issue of the partnership as it relates to the relationship between the county board of supervisors and the applicant on the public good that's being created.

We just want to avoid any appearance of or conflict with regard to contract zoning.

So one more question on that.

I'm sorry.

So when you say it's our way of establishing public good of a project,

The Planning Commission also looks to establish some public good also.

So my concern with this process of doing this one first would be, and I know it's not our intent to influence the Planning Commission, but again, it's the perception that there should be no more

asked of by the applicant, by the planning commission, because they too may look for more public good.

I understand that the good that has been identified in the public-private partnership arrangement is very clearly articulated in the agreement that you've seen with respect to the reservation of 25,000 square feet for a primary business and the contribution, the rebate back of those future taxes in exchange for that contribution.

um uh the there's there's no

in my view that there is no assumption that it is then causing further restraint or problem with respect to what the Planning Commission, the community, and the board may want to consider as far as land use aspects of the application as it comes forward.

I'm not understanding your perspective on that.

All right, thank you.

I guess my point is just that when we have to do it this way, I understand, but if we can possibly avoid it in the future, I think we should try to let the Planning Commission go through their situation before we get into this.

Yes, ma'am.

Hold on, we got a couple of people.

Supervisor Mallek and then Supervisor McKeel.

Yeah, there we go.

Sorry.

The clarity for me is that there are two different things in my mind.

We have to separate the zoning issue entirely from the performance agreement and financial side.

So I am actually pleased to get that part squared away and out of the way, one way or the other, so that then it's not going to be thrown into the mix for the land use decision, which is totally a different

Operation, different people involved.

That was a suggestion that Ron White made for the Southwood thing, which I think enabled us to move forward much more effectively.

We thought about the order with both Southwood and Barnes and Lombard and concluded that this order was better.

It's a close call.

The key thing for the board is that it be clear in the process that it is not contracting away its legislative power.

And the way the agreement is set up with the language that's in the recital and the contingency upon rezoning being approved, it separates the two actions, recognizing that some of the

The qualities of the project may be set in place by the board acting on the agreement, but to some extent every project comes to the board with some of its essence already in place for the board and the Planning Commission to review and comment upon.

Yes.

I just wanted to let you know I reached out to Julian Bivens, my planning commissioner, because I heard that there was some discussion about this concern.

And I just would like to read you what Commissioner Julian Bivens said.

in response to my question.

He said, I would imagine that the agreement is helpful in moving other parts of the plan along.

There is clear language that the anticipated agreement is not a green light for the rezoning of the property.

In today's environment, there are so many moving pieces that I can understand why it would be helpful to attempt to pin things down.

The project still has to be built, and even with very inexpensive money, that could be the final hurdle.

So I just wanted you to know what, at least from my planning commissioner's viewpoint, the timing of this, how this was playing out.

And I think he felt very comfortable with the timing as well.

Thank you.

I would just reiterate that, yeah, I mean, to County Attorney Campner's point, letter H in the agreement,

strikes it very clear.

I can see from an applicant's perspective how having this agreement in place first before you have to go through the time and money exercise of the zoning process or rezoning process could impact whether or not you want to get that path started or start down that path.

And then I can't imagine any planning commissioner we currently have on that board has any

Agreed.

Mr. Walker, Mr. Kantner, thank you very much.

I had raised those questions about the process and the order, and I very much appreciate the time you put into preparing your responses.

Also, Mr. Johnson, who I had also forwarded the question to.

I think it's important that we are able to address these questions when they come up and explain to our residents why things happen the way they do.

So thank you all very much.

All right, Mr. Johnson, good afternoon, sir.

Thank you, Chairman Galloway, Deputy County Manager Walker.

I know that you may know me, but let me introduce myself for those who are watching at home.

I am Roger Johnson.

I work in economic development for Albemarle County.

I'll be speaking about the project specifics along with JT Newberry, who's also on the economic development team.

We also have with us the potential partner with the county, Kyle Redinger.

I'll introduce Kyle.

Kyle will talk a little bit about the project, then turn it back over to me and JT, who can talk about the details of the project.

And then we'll open it up for questions.

Of course, if you have any questions along the way, feel free to ask.

Just recognize that we may be planning on answering those later on in the presentation.

So Kyle comes to us as a UVA graduate.

He also has his MBA from Darden School of Business.

He is a subject matter expert in the innovation and entrepreneurship space.

He's a co-founder with Startups.

He's also an experienced developer.

And I would add one of his most important qualifications that Kyle, his partner in the LLC, passed a background investigation that we had by a third party private investigator who said that he is not only capable of pulling off a project of this size and scale, he's of good moral character and will make a good partner.

Kyle?

Thank you, Roger.

Yes, sir.

Hello.

Let me try to share my screen now.

Not quite yet.

I believe.

There we go.

All right.

Thank you, everyone.

I'm Kyle Redinger.

I've met some of you in person and happy to be a longtime resident of the area.

I did go to public school here and graduated from Darden, as Roger mentioned.

Before I begin, I just wanted to thank everyone involved in this process.

It's been about a 14 month journey thus far.

I think with this and we've worked with everyone from supervisors to economic development to county staff to consultants and lots of other community members and engineers and consultants and architects and everyone's been really fantastic and I think things have gone successfully despite a lot of these challenges that we have to meet virtually with COVID.

I think in particular with the county it shows great leadership and commitment to our community and I imagine when we get through all of this things will be a lot stronger and more efficient with the lessons that we're learning along the way.

Economic Development will go into, I think, some more details of the performance agreement.

I just wanted to highlight a few things and be very brief and, of course, available to answer your questions.

This vision slide I shared with the Planning Commission in our work session about two or three months ago, and today I just wanted to focus on two of these pillars.

The first is

you know the economic development of this project in a designated opportunity zone and importantly how this project creates a strong return on investment for the county and contributes positively to our tax base and helps provide those essential services that we may be struggling to provide in a recession and with a declining tax base.

Quick background, I think some relevant items.

We've been very successful, as I mentioned, working with the county.

I mean, this process has went a lot more smoothly than I thought.

And I hate to say it publicly, but I'd say some of our review times I'd say are almost quicker than they were before COVID.

And maybe that's because we're doing less meetings and more project review.

We've also hired our full design team and that is going to be led by Bruce Wardell, who many of you know as a former ARB member.

He has an architecture firm in Charlottesville and will be designing really the whole concept of the site, the most prominent buildings on the site and will work with us through the completion of that construction.

Also, we've already had several businesses asking us when are we going to be able to put our business here.

We've been approached by light manufacturing firms, a local food hub, to name a few.

I just wanted to share just a real quick view of this project from 5th Street.

We spent a lot of time doing design iterations, and if you follow this project back over the last 12 or 14 months, it's definitely changed a lot.

We've had to balance a lot of different and conflicting requirements, whether it's an entrance corridor, whether it's transportation needs or a parking amenity for a Class A office tenant.

you know all these things have to come together and I think make an attractive site.

So what you're seeing today is really just a concept to show you massing and kind of how we've tried to integrate the scale of those buildings into the community.

Over the next two weeks we'll be doing a lot more detail and Bruce Mardell in particular and his team will be adding all of sort of the architectural elements so you'll actually get a much better picture of what exactly we're going to build by the time we enter our next component of this public process.

Here's just sort of a more of a bird's-eye view to show you what on the other side of this street this this might look like and again not don't want to spend too much time going into sort of land use and aesthetics of the site but just wanted to say that we were making progress on these and we will continue to make some nice design revisions.

Now to the point of my presentation

I really see this performance agreement as providing four sort of key benefits to the county and some of those are monetary in nature.

I think the most important and obvious one is with our partnership with economic development, we're able to market this as an opportunity zone office space that's ready to build.

You know, we're able to add upgraded amenities that wouldn't otherwise be available in a rezoning process.

That's a dog park that's really substantial and a unique amount of open space and sort of a green belt that runs through the site.

Bike racks, you know, sort of a modern drop-off point for, you know, maybe autonomous vehicles one day.

And some unique amenities I think that will be very attractive to the types of companies that Roger and his team are thinking of attracting here.

This project, just in application and permit fees, will be well over $100,000 for the county.

When fully built, we'll see well over $300,000 in annual direct real estate taxes.

And I think the most important thing and what we're all trying to achieve here is to replicate a very successful project similar to what happened with Willow Tree.

And if you read that economic impact

There are some other indirect benefits I think that are very important.

that have some timely components to them.

And the first one is most important.

I sit up here and I do represent the project, but there are a lot of people that I talk to every day who are local to this community, whether it's an architecture firm, a landscaping firm, local contractors, engineering firms, marketing firms, consultants.

There are a lot of people that benefit from this project, and I sort of direct all of those people in one way or another, try to listen to them, but this does put food on the table.

It helps keep them employed, allows them to keep staff, and I think with talks of GDP being down 25 percent in this quarter and UVA maybe not coming back until next year, it's really scary what happens to local businesses.

you know this performance agreement is a step further in continuing to support those businesses at least in the real estate industry in the near term.

I also think that this performance agreement will allow us to stay very competitive in the region.

I believe Roger and JT will focus on lack of available office space in the area but there's really nothing available.

If we had another willow tree that came to us today and said I would love to be in Amarillo County

I don't think there's any options anywhere for them to go with 25,000 square feet or more.

So we do need to get ahead of that and provide that, especially if those are the types of businesses that we want to attract.

Finally, I think this project is very complimentary to what's happening on Fifth Street.

It's symbiotic with Southwood's community business orientation, either from providing job opportunities for those residents or complimentary services to what they're willing to offer over there.

And I think it makes a very important place and sort of intersection in the county across from the county office building with some, you know, and it's not really part of the performance agreement, but our proper traffic improvements are needed now and will be very important I think for mitigating traffic impacts in the future.

So next steps, if you decide to support this performance agreement, and I really do hope you will, and that will just be incorporated as our first proffer.

I mean, there are many other proffers that will be associated with this project that are independent of this performance agreement.

And if there are additional community concerns that we haven't met in the last 12 or 14 months, then we'll be happy to consider them as a way to mitigate our impacts.

Secondly, importantly, we were supposed to do a community meeting in the end of March

primarily with the 5th and Avon CAC.

But that got, I believe, deferred due to the COVID thing.

So we're willing and able to do either a special meeting with the CAC or to the broader community, whatever the board thinks is most appropriate.

And absolutely, as we've started from the beginning, willing to engage with community members and do what we can to get support from community members.

After that, we will, of course, attempt to go to the planning commission at the next most appropriate meeting.

We will work with staff and economic development to determine any issues with the zoning going forward.

And at the same time, I think importantly, as soon as Mr. Wardell gives me some beautiful building renderings, I'm going to go start marketing the site to potential tenants and getting folks excited about locating here.

And I'm really excited to get that process started, even though it is probably about 12 or 18 months away.

That's all I had prepared to today.

I'll turn it back over to Roger and JT, and again, happy to be available to answer questions if they come my way either, I assume, after Roger has finished with his presentation.

Thank you, sir.

Roger?

Going to JT?

All right, I think I'm back.

There you go.

Thank you.

Sorry about that, Chairman Galloway.

I got lost in Zoom.

JT, thank you for bringing this slide up.

Both JT Newberry and I plan to talk about both a micro level look at what's going on in our community, as well as some specifics related to this site, and finally, specifics related to the development agreement itself.

On the slide that you see before you,

The locations that we're talking about are directly across the street from the county office building where the police department is.

There are two sites highlighted.

The one on the left will be mostly residential.

Those on the right is where we're talking primarily about the particular performance agreement.

JT, if you'd hit the next slide, please.

Public-private partnerships are done for many societal benefits or public goods.

including some that we have already entered as a county.

I know that you all are aware of this, but I think it's important that we make sure the county citizens understand what we're doing and why we're doing it.

A couple of existing examples are Habitat for Humanity.

Habitat for Humanity is a public-private partnership that includes affordable housing as the societal good.

There is also in the top right-hand corner a picture

perhaps the Future Barns Lumber, which is also a public-private partnership.

It includes a street grid in Crozet, a public gathering space amongst other amenities.

In the left-hand corner of the slide, you'll see Willow Tree.

This particular public-private partnership has adaptive reuse of woolen mills.

It has other public amenities such as walking trails and a bridge.

And importantly, it retains career ladder jobs in our community.

In the bottom right hand corner, you'll see another public-private partnership who has a different good.

It informs this particular project was with Perron Robotics to create an autonomous vehicle shuttle in Crozet and in other areas.

It informed our planning department about the future of autonomous vehicles, how that may impact the built environment.

And it also helped an existing business with some customized solutions.

I think it's been said several times, but worth reiterating,

that these two processes, the development agreement and the rezoning, are mutually exclusive.

And I think it's important that we reiterate that as both intentional and for legal purposes.

Next slide, please.

Why are we proposing this particular public-private partnership?

Economic development staff in particular would like to grow the county's commercial tax base.

producing additional tax revenue for increased services, particularly given all that's going on in the world.

I think it's particularly relevant here.

We'd like to create space for future business growth.

I think Kyle touched on that a little bit.

I'd like to expand.

We have a lack of diversity of product for primary businesses in our community.

As a reminder, primary business is a company that produces a good or service locally and sells it outside of our metropolitan statistical area, bringing all that money back into our community to help support

Mom and Pop and Main Street businesses.

But product itself is an economic development term.

It could be, for example, a rail surf site.

It could be a wet lab space.

It could be industrial zoning.

In this particular public-private partnership, we're talking about increasing Class A office space.

Currently, our vacancy rate in Albemarle County for Class A office space is 1%.

And just as a general rule, that's unhealthy.

It means we have no room for expansion for existing businesses, attraction of new businesses, or really any opportunity for growth in that particular area with no room to grow businesses, leave our community.

And many of those businesses are very much the type we would like to have in our community.

The public good we're trying to solve here is that particular issue.

As you may know, we've had several companies leave our community because they couldn't find a home here.

And as I mentioned earlier, we have a willing developer

is an experienced partner and has passed the requisite background necessary to demonstrate he's both capable and his partners are capable.

So we've got an opportunity to partner with somebody who's both experienced and willing to do so in an opportunity song.

So I'm going to turn it over to JT Newberry to talk about the terms and other factors related to the public-private partnership.

OK.

Can everybody hear me OK?

Yes, sir.

All right.

So thanks, Roger, and good afternoon, members of the board.

I'm going to start with a little bit of site history.

The developer first pursued and obtained preliminary approval for buy-write development on this property, and that approval remains valid.

Nevertheless, early last year, he submitted an application for rezoning to a planned unit development zoning, which was mixed use.

It had some elements of residential and non-residential, and that was called Royal Fern.

The Planning Commission ultimately recommended denial of that layout in October of last year and the Board of Supervisors in November approved the developer's request to revise the application and that's actually the first time that

The public and the board heard of Albemarle Business Campus and so over the holidays the layout was revised and the applicant went to a work session in February

with Albemarle Business Campus and got feedback from both the Planning Commission and community development staff that neighborhood model zoning would be more appropriate for the increase in non-residential development.

Between Royal Fern and Albemarle Business Campus, there was a large increase in the non-residential

development on the site.

And so from here, regardless of the action tonight, the applicant will still move forward with a community meeting with that revised layout and then a public hearing with the Planning Commission and Planning Commission, a public hearing with the board at a minimum.

So look a little bit closer at the particular proposed terms of the agreement.

These are highlights from attachment A in your board packet.

And so on the left hand side, we see the obligations for the developer and on the right hand side, we have the obligations for the county.

Under this agreement the developer would be taking Class A office space plans through the entire process, approval process, so that economic development would have the ability to market effectively that opportunity for businesses that are growing here.

the developer would be retaining or reserving 25,000 square feet on behalf of economic development for five years for us to market that site and to provide it to a primary business which Roger mentioned are those that get their money from outside of the area and Kyle mentioned they're likely to have those direct indirect and induced benefits that

benefit the community.

There are some other elements involved in the developer's obligations related to enhanced connectivity, enhanced bus shelter and bike racks, a place for dynamic transportation, as well as a dog park.

We'll look a little bit more closely at those in just a second.

But to shift over to what the county's obligations are under this partnership, Roger mentioned the due diligence that we've done on Kyle and his partners.

We would be responsible for using a synthetic TIF to rebate $100,000 to the developer

for all of the obligations that I just covered.

And I want to talk a little bit about the mechanism of how that works.

So as the project moves forward and taxes are paid,

the county would calculate from the basis of the existing taxes that are due now, we would rebate those incremental additional taxes to our economic development authority and then our economic development authority would then provide those funds back to the developer.

We would do that each year until $100,000 was returned back to the developer

under this part of the county's obligations.

The other thing that Roger and I will be doing is promoting this as one of our premier opportunity zone locations.

We'll be supporting the request for an expedited review by community development.

and the property also contains a little bit of retail associated with the full campus and we would be working with a consultant called Retail Strategies to help find tenants for that retail space as well.

The last page of the development agreement is the project exhibit and the arrows here indicate the buildings that we see as being most valuable to a primary business.

The front office building, right adjacent to 5th Street, will likely attract many different primary businesses, but the building at the rear of the site may also be attractive, especially if it's a business that's not as interested in any kind of visibility, or maybe even has some sort of light manufacturing associated with it.

Some of the other public elements shown here would be the meandering trail that goes from the multi-use trail adjacent to Fifth Street through the entire site up to the dog park.

The center of the site has the dynamic transportation location, which would be used for transportation network companies like Uber or Lyft, as well as John.

The enhanced bus stop would be located at the corner of 5th Street and Old Lynchburg right here, and that's nestled between these two retail buildings.

This slide I think just really highlights the enhanced connectivity.

Each of these white arrows indicates an area where pedestrians would be able to move about the site, both within the site and to the site from outside areas.

The next couple of slides just show some pictures of what these enhanced public elements may look like.

A raised pedestrian crossing helps with traffic calming, helps with accessibility crossing the street, as well as safety.

Here are some different bike racks that could be envisioned for the site, both associated with the bus stop and each of the buildings within the site.

Here's just an example of what an enhanced bus stop would contain.

It would be enclosed.

It would have lighting.

There are other elements that are listed specifically in the development agreement.

In closing, before we take your questions, I just wanted to note that Roger and I tried to estimate what it would cost us if the county was to go on its own and try to develop equivalent speculative office space in the county.

And it would cost no less than $7 million, conservatively.

And that does not include the land cost.

So we feel

We feel really positive about the value of the partnership that we're entering into.

And the other thing I would note is I started by talking about the site history, which includes those approvals for residential development.

That would total about $22 million overall.

And you may have noticed, as specified in the agreement,

This layout yields about a $40 million investment in the county.

So although we would be rebating a portion of those taxes back, the lifetime benefits of the county is certainly positive.

Thank you, JT.

Roger.

Supervisors, we'll go through our order if you have questions.

I just do have a comment.

I would love for us, speaking of transit, and I think Kyle has really provided great options around transit.

This is more a terminology comment.

If we could get away from thinking about

on demand as just Uber and Lyft.

Because we may very well, we are probably going to be moving into an on-demand transit model along with a fixed route.

But I don't want the public to view this as just Uber and Lyft.

It's an on-demand model.

So that's just a comment around our language that we use with transit.

My personal thought.

And the only other comment I have is I'm questioning the requirement.

Yes.

If we look under

We can see how other supervisors feel, but I certainly do not feel well.

I'm not against dogs or dog parks.

I don't know that I feel like that has to be a requirement, but we'll see what other supervisors have to say.

One question, and I'll comment on Diantha's about the dog park, but first, in reading all the Planning Commission stuff from before, is there still a storage unit

The short answer is yes, but we've done a number of design elements to shield that and make it more approachable.

So the first thing, and JT if you just want to point out that top left building,

Along the front street level or retail level, we've designed about 5,000 square feet of what we call flex space in the front of that building.

So that will look like a more traditional retail type business.

And then our architectural elements will shield the other two stories of that that are above that grade.

And the intent there is to give us

Class A office is relatively expensive to build.

It's not affordable for all types of businesses.

And that flex space in the storage building because of the construction type allows us to be much more affordable for say startups or small businesses, businesses that still want to be located in an opportunity zone.

And it also does some cool stuff like allows those businesses, like let's say you have a small Etsy shop or you sell jewelry online and you have a decent amount of inventory, you can access that storage space as warehousing space.

So it provides a lot of flexibility for businesses not only to take advantage of the opportunity but to grow into necessary inventory storage.

Okay, thank you.

With respect to the dog food, dog food, the dog park, I think that it's a really nice compromise to say it's there unless the county and the developer decide otherwise, because we can let them decide if there's some better use of that piece of property.

that provides good to the community.

I personally think that's something that's needed, but I also recognize that giving the latitude there with the staff and the developer should work out just fine.

Cameron Galloway, I'd like to add something real quickly if I could.

I know we're using the term opportunity zone regularly, and I know the folks on the call are very familiar with that, but many in the public may not be.

For those who are listening in, opportunity zones are a federally designated area that allow folks to use capital gains tax to invest in that either business and or structure and not

have to pay capital gains in the normal way they would.

The longer they invest, the less taxes they have to pay on those capital gains.

So there is both an investment and as well as a tax aversion incentive for folks to invest in these areas.

Roger.

Thank you, Chair Galloway.

Thank you, Mr. Redinger, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Newberry.

I'm supportive of

with what we are looking for in the county.

Yes, I agree with the Supervisor

Palmer was saying regarding the dog park I think we have enough flexibility there that if they did want to change something they could come back to us and if they said we have a better proposal other than the dog park and I'm sure we'd go along with that we'd see but I like the idea of a dog park.

The other thing is what happens I know the developer agreed to reserve the 25,000 square feet

of Class A office space for five years.

What happens at the end of five years and, you know, the economy, whatever, and nothing happens.

Thank you for that question.

I'll address that if that's okay, JT.

In general, the

The hold that we have as a county to reserve that space for primary businesses is lost and Kyle would be able to build Class A office space for a non-primary business.

Okay, so it would definitely benefit us to sell for Class A office space.

because that would bring the county more revenue.

Is that correct?

Yes, ma'am.

And by the way, I do like this proposal.

I'm very much in favor of it.

One clarification, just to make sure that I understand correctly, the synthetic TIF is the taxes paid on the increase in value over

The dirt that it is today, the intermade, the increased, and that is the part that whose taxes are then returned.

But the base taxes stay with the county.

Yes, ma'am.

So a synthetic tax increment financing means we'll establish a baseline.

And I know these are not exact numbers, but I'll just use these to illustrate.

If the property is worth a million dollars today, and it was assessed in a future year, and it was worth $2 million,

The incremental value is a million dollars more than the baseline, and that would be the determining factor of how much rebate the developer would be eligible for.

Thank you.

Very good.

My only comment is the dire need we have for this type of primary office space in the county.

It's just been painful that we've had some places that have started here that we've lost that

Had this type of space already been online, we may not have lost them.

I mean, they may still have moved.

I'm not saying it would have been a guarantee, but those entities were looking for places in the county actively and just couldn't find it.

So it's something that we desperately need because they're producing the gooder service here and the money's coming from outside the command, as Roger's described.

There are no other questions or comments.

I'll give a last call for that.

Ned, I do.

Just one comment.

Yes, please.

Yeah.

I feel very comfortable if, in fact, I'm going back to the dog park issue.

Because what I was trying to avoid was having Kyle come back to us with approval for or removal of a dog park.

Yeah, just trying to save another step in that I didn't want the dog park to be an absolute or Kyle in the position where he had to come back to us.

The specific language of the agreement does say unless the developer and the county agree to it.

We could insert the appropriate language.

It could be the developer and the county executive.

It could be the director.

I'm happy with inserting something because I just don't want this to have to have another step to come back to us for something for a decision about a dog park to be perfectly honest with you.

Do we have to change the thing that says the county?

I mean, you're right.

There's different, I guess, understandings of that.

You don't know.

You're right.

Is that appropriate for the director or planning director?

I would, too.

OK.

And that's the language in the proposed resolution.

That's to sign the agreement itself when it's completed.

That's great.

Very good.

Any other questions or final comments?

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley, you raised your hand to make the motion.

I'm unmuted.

Okay, so that would be action item number five.

I move that we approve the business recovery fund to assist businesses impacted by... Hold on.

Different one.

Second.

And let's see, Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley made the motion.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Ms.

Palmer?

Yes.

Ms.

Price?

Aye.

Mr. Galloway?

Yes.

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Very good.

The motion carries.

Thank you, JT and Roger and Kyle.

Good luck with the project.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you.

All right, board, we're running a tad ahead of schedule.

We were scheduled at 5 p.m.

to take a recess and pick up at 5.05 for Business Recovery Fund to assist businesses.

We can do one of two things.

We can go ahead and start the recess and reconvene at 5.05 just to stay on schedule for what the public expects schedule-wise.

That would be my preference, or we can just shorten and begin before 5.05.

We will be back online and ready to convene at 5.05.

Thank you.

And on our agenda this evening, business recovery fund to assist businesses impacted by COVID-19.

And Roger, I believe you're up to introduce this item for us.

Thank you, Chairman Galloway, members of the board.

Again, for those who may just be joining us, my name is Roger Johnson.

I work in economic development for Albemarle County.

Today, we're going to talk about a business recovery fund.

I believe we have with us Stephen Davis, who is the president of the Community Investment Collaborative, a business partner with the county who provides economic development services.

And we look forward to maybe hearing from Stephen a little bit later.

I think Emily's going to invite him in in a few minutes, and I hope that she will.

JT, if you'd hit the next slide, please.

The agenda for this particular project is going to go back a little bit.

I think many of you on the board are familiar with Project Enable and its history, but we want to provide a background for context about what we're proposing and why.

We want to talk about a business continuity strategy, which is a brand new strategy.

I know we're here to talk about a microloan, but the microloan is a subset of a larger strategy.

In order for you to make an informed decision, staff thought it was important for you to see the larger picture.

and then we're going to talk about next steps.

So if you would, JT, thank you.

For those that may not be familiar who may be listening in, Albemarle County created an economic development strategic plan called Project Enable to enable a better life economically.

In doing so, we first assessed Albemarle County.

We completed a SWOT analysis to understand what our strengths and weaknesses were.

We accessed the existing business support.

We looked at what other partners were providing in terms of service, whether that be CVPED, the Small Business Association, the Small Business Development Center, Community Investment Collaborative.

We looked at reviews of existing archives, which include things like the comprehensive plan, previous economic development studies, other existing information,

We engaged the community.

There was a large outreach in terms of what the community would like to see us focus on.

Came back with some interesting insights and we built a plan to focus on primary business.

And I know we just talked about primary business and I repeat myself, but really that's focusing on the existing businesses here that produce a good or service locally and sell it outside our metropolitan statistical area, bringing those funds back in to help all the important things

as well as small business.

I think importantly our existing partners helped small businesses whether it be CIC or the SBDC.

We chose not to be redundant and I'll continue to fund those particular organizations so they can provide those services.

JT if you would.

There's a little bit of a pivot happening now that we're proposing and

EDO staff was focuses on services not provided by partners, and so our strategic initiatives were focused on primary businesses, and that included things like business recruitment and expansion, where we'd actually go visit with the businesses.

We're still doing that.

We provided customized solutions for those businesses.

We focus on public-private partnerships, innovation and entrepreneurship, and site readiness.

That's all part of Project Enable, and that went through the approval process.

was bought in by the majority of the board.

And we've been working on that for the past year and a half or so.

Global pandemic has triggered a need for a strategic shift.

And we would like to focus on the continuity of all businesses, meaning that we're going to continually focus on the things that I just mentioned before, but we're adding to that a business continuity strategy.

JT, if you would.

So we're going to look at it in three ways.

One, we're going to consider ways that the county can suspend, defer, remove costs for existing businesses.

This is a finance-led initiative.

It's going to be led by military and chiffle leaders within the financial organization.

They're going to look at different ways to defer costs.

Additionally, they're hiring a financial consultant to advise on stimulus.

Federal Stimulus Package information and determine ways our county may be able to leverage those.

And that's on the finance side of our strategy.

Next slide, please.

Economic development and others would like to increase access to capital for our existing businesses.

We're going to do that by connecting businesses to grants and loans and other such resources, you know, the Federal Stimulus Package, the CARES package, which we'll talk about in just a minute, would be an example of that.

We have created a business resource guide where we've consolidated information about what we're doing as a county and sharing that with our business community.

And the microloan fits into this bigger strategy.

We're requesting permission from the board today to create a microloan program in conjunction with the city.

It would be asking for permission to move $200,000 of funding in an economic development fund

into a collaborative fund for microloan programs and small business for both recapitalization as well as overcome some community issues.

I'll get into this program a little more.

We're virtually meeting with the city, the economic development offices, UVA, the Chamber, the CACVB, the Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development and others.

We're inspecting, monitoring, we're creating

Thank you very much for having me.

We also are working with the city.

You may have noticed today we launched a series of educational webinars.

There's three different webinars helping small business work on strategy and other educational components to help them survive this unprecedented pandemic.

Conversely, we're partnering with Kate.

They've been a very strategic partner in helping us educate the business community on all the significant.

Slide three, please, JT.

All the significant information going on.

As you know, there are resources in abundance, but they're spread out.

They're disparate.

They've been helping us consolidate that and be able to promote that so the businesses know what's going on.

Economic developments agreed to be a single point of contact.

And overall, we're continuing to support our partners' initiatives, and we're promoting things like the CACPB website, Virginia Tourism Corporation,

and other things going on throughout our community.

So before we get into the actual details of the microloan program, I thought it was very important for this board to understand how the microloan program fits into a much larger strategy.

And hopefully that will help inform your decision making.

J.D., if you move on to the federal stimulus, thank you.

So I'm sure that many have seen this in the media.

The federal state response has been significant.

The CARES Act in particular was very large.

It's $350 billion set aside for small business loans.

Some portion of that was forgivable if it was intended to retain employees.

But there's been revised guidelines from the Treasury.

There have been gaps in the particular program where some businesses are not served or completely served.

You may be aware that this was administered by private sector banks and or community lending institutions.

They had to be certified.

They actually determined what the lending requirement minimum thresholds were.

Many banks determined that they were going to serve their existing customers first.

And so if you had a loan with a large publicly owned bank, they would service you first.

and then they moved to, secondly, serving those that had an account with them and then if they had funds left over to help, they would take on new clients.

That's also left gaps in eligibility.

The overwhelming demand for loans and unemployment insurance is evident by all the news media.

I'm sure you've seen those.

Our leader of the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, Stephen Murray, said in a conference the other day,

that the $350 billion set aside for lending was about one third of the need.

This particular program itself was focused on short term employee retention.

While we do expect additional action at the federal level, there's just a large lack of details, and the federal government is looking at this from a macro level.

And I share all this with the board to say I believe that we need to take action locally to help our existing businesses.

That's why we have before you a consideration of a business recovery microlaw.

Now I'll get into a little bit of the details of that, JT, if you'll move on.

So what we're proposing specifically is to allocate $200,000 from the existing Economic Development Opportunity Fund and move that to the Economic Development Authority.

We would then ask the Economic Development Authority to move that over to the Community Investment Collaborative to administer a microloan program.

I think it's important that I share with you

that of the monies that you set aside a few years ago, we have a remaining balance of $1.85 million in these funds.

This would reduce that funding to $1.65 million.

Although much of that funds are unencumbered right now, they are planned.

In fact, we have more economic development work than we have funding.

So you need to know as you make this decision that this will reduce funding for future site readiness programs.

We are advising you that we think it's in the best interest that we shift our focus, help small businesses maintain business continuity in some respect at the expense of future funding for site readiness, including the project.

The EDA would provide funding to the

Community Investment Collaborative for a microloan for all small businesses.

This would be to fill gaps in access to capital that they're facing today to help restore business activity and by restoration.

You often hear a term called recapitalization.

A recapitalization is a nice way to say, you know, these businesses need money to restock the shelves.

There's many supply chain issues they need to pay.

They need to find additional ways to do that.

It also means they need to pay their employees to get started without actually having income coming in for some period of time.

And we also want this program to focus on the essential service for at-risk communities.

As part of this microloan program, we reached out to the Office of Equity Inclusion and asked for input to make sure that those in our community who don't often have a voice was heard from.

It was her recommendation that we include a certain percentage or portion of this particular funding to help these at-risk communities.

And I'll go in a little bit more detail about that later.

In general, this microloan program would be administered by the Community Investment Collaborative.

There would be a joint collaboration with the city.

You may have noticed in the newspaper a few weeks back that the Economic Development Authority allocated $100,000 of funding to go

toward an initiative of this nature.

They are waiting to see how the county reacts to that particular opportunity.

I think it's very important that I accent this.

We are providing a system by which other philanthropic endeavors in our community can contribute to this long term.

There are many people who want to give back to our community who may also take advantage of this particular system and grow this particular fund.

Lastly, I'll mention that payments and proceeds from this particular grant will remain in a revolving loan fund.

I said grant, I meant loan.

That will remain in this loan fund and will be continually administered by the Community Investment Collaborative.

They will continue to help alone and fund small businesses as part of their overarching strategy.

So our recommendation is that the board adopt this resolution to approve the appropriation to the Business Recovery Fund.

I've got Steven online, I believe, and both Steven and I will be glad to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you, Roger.

Welcome, Steven.

I do have a question.

I think Roger indicated this is a collaborative with the city and the county.

Maybe I was looking at the wrong.

No, I don't.

It was probably just the way I was reading on one of the pages.

Yes, ma'am.

I will say the city had an existing relationship with the Community Investment Collaborative.

So they had existing funds that they are reallocating to different programs.

So while it seems like there's a disproportionate contribution, the city is changing their allocation of approximately $350,000 in total.

100,000 of that's going to this program and the 250 is going to other similar programs.

However, I'm glad you brought that up, Supervisor McKeel.

And that's great to know, and it's good to know how the monies are going into the fund, and I appreciate that.

And I guess another question I had was, how are the businesses identified?

No, ma'am, I'm glad you asked that question.

We have been

Moving quickly with this particular item and normally when we get before the board we have everything buttoned down and tight.

We're trying to move at the speed of business at this particular juncture.

So we have been working on that particular process.

As it stands now we expect to have a application period of some seven to ten days.

It will be an online application.

If you approve this today the CIC will go about building that online application process.

The applicants will come in during that time frame.

There'll be some sort of scoring matrix that will identify those.

Well, first, the staff will evaluate whether or not they meet the minimum standards.

If they do, they'll move on to round two.

Those that move to round two will be scored in some form or fashion, and then round one of loans will be distributed.

And then we hope there'll be a second round or maybe even a third round.

That's all I had to ask.

Thank you.

That's very helpful.

I do support the endeavor.

I understand the necessity of using speed and getting it done as quickly as possible.

But thanks for the clarification.

Yes, thank you.

I certainly support this.

How much of the criteria or the scoring mechanism do you have worked out?

For instance, one of the things, of course, that we've learned is people with one employee or no employees, maybe they have volunteers instead of employees.

Are those types of businesses that have not made it

Yeah, so I'll address those in reverse order because the second question is much easier.

We do expect non-profits to apply and we're going to encourage them to apply

We have not set specifics on the scoring matrix for nonprofits or businesses.

We have provided some general guidance for the CIC to say we'd like to see some 20% of these funds go to nonprofits, some 20% of these funds go to those at-risk rural community type services, and then the other 60% any and all businesses.

So we don't have a scoring matrix designed at this point.

So one more question then on that.

And I'm thinking about, for instance, the Crozet Arts Depot that houses our tourism group in it.

So obviously that's public good there.

And it does have a tourism

bent to it.

I mean, it helps the community and our bottom line by increasing tourism to that area and occupying a historic site.

I'm not quite sure it's designated as a historic site.

Somebody will correct me on that.

But it's clearly a historic site.

So how do you envision not having the criteria set up now for something like that?

That is an excellent question.

And I'll answer this as transparent as I can be, Supervisor Palmer.

In isolation, almost all these applications look really, really well.

It's really hard to determine how they will

Okay, thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, Chair Galloway.

Yes, ma'am.

In fact, we're hopeful that Steven Davis, the president of CIC, will help us reach out to some of these philanthropic endeavors.

He has existing contacts in our community.

And many of those philanthropic organizations want to work with the CIC.

Thank you.

And I think that's important that people see that the county and the city are putting our money into this.

that may help encourage plus with all of it coming through a central funnel, then I believe that that would provide a more equitable distribution of these assets and not necessarily be on a first come first serve or who someone may happen to know.

So I see this as a great start.

The only thing I would ask is that as I know that you will do is continue to keep us informed so that we can look to see what if other or additional steps we can take to help our local businesses.

I'm pleased to do so, Supervisor Price, thank you.

Thank you, Chair Galloway.

Roger, I had a, or Mr. Johnson, I'm sorry, had a quick, I know Roger, I know you.

Thank you very much for asking that question.

I can't speak to what the average will be.

The preliminary guidance is the cap amount of loan will be $10,000 at a 1% annual fee.

I think, Stephen, are you on the line?

Stephen, can you speak to, I know that oftentimes Stephen serves an under-resourced community and sometimes they're socioeconomically deprived, so I imagine the recovery rate may be different than a traditional bank.

I mean, before all of this, before all of the pandemic and so forth, we had worked hard to build relationships with our clients and had a pretty solid repayment rate of over 98%.

That won't continue with our existing loans.

And for these loans, just to be kind of fully upfront,

These are risky loans we're making, but we're providing opportunities to help people potentially survive where they might not otherwise.

And so they're going to be riskier than the typical business growth loan, I think, but that's part of the reason they're necessary.

So I think I have no way of knowing how risky.

Our hope is that we recover still a very large percentage.

of them over time, and we can provide flexibility to those owners over time to do that.

It's really hard to know exactly how well they'll do, but parts of our goal is always with it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Supervisor Malek?

There we go.

Okay, now I'm ready, sorry.

I was trying to be quiet and I blew it.

For use of the dollars, is there criteria for how the money is to be used?

I'd like to speak to the first part of that question, and then I'll turn it over to Stephen for the second.

We didn't put criteria for what it could be used for.

We listed what it could not be used for, Supervisor Mallek.

Particularly, we did not want folks to use this money to purchase land or to enter into a lease.

OK, so even if you're OK, so it cannot be used for rent.

I see.

I think the idea was there wouldn't be used for equipment or long-term purchases like land or property or equipment, but working capital and kind of expenses like rent, I think, would be included.

Not a new long-term lease.

Thank you for the clarification.

Very good.

And then the triaging amongst the different candidates.

I assume there will be tremendous competition for this money.

How do you determine some of these things with years of business or experience or ability to succeed?

Sure.

So the two kind of core criteria that we would be looking at are

Well one, the kind of yes or no question is did they have a business license in 2019 and obviously that license being current this year so it's not a business that just started you know a month ago but was actually an operating operation for at least at this point you know four to six months or longer and so that's one.

Two, before March 1 can they demonstrate through financial statements and

and so on.

You know, it'll effectively probably be a $300 or so loan payment to do that before March 1.

Obviously, after March 1, many of them started to feel the effects of this.

So we're not looking at that.

So it's really months before March 1 and for the 2019 year.

and then the third piece is personal credit and that is CIC is very sensitive to that because we are about providing opportunities to folks who might not have always had them and sometimes that means they don't have well-established personal credit or have had a couple of tough points in their credit history and the way we look at that is

We're looking for folks who at least in the last say 12 months have somewhat stabilized their personal credit situation.

So if they had a really bad 20, 15, 16 or 17

and got into a hole that in the last year that they've been working to stabilize that and so we would still consider them.

But in the last 12 months they are continually behind on payments to other creditors and so forth that they would probably be scored lower and would be less likely to get the loan.

I guess I'll just make a few comments.

I mean, time is critical.

And while I can understand the need for a scoring process and why that interest is there, I would encourage it to not be overly complex with several rounds that it's going to prevent the applicants from getting the microloan.

The need is critical now for them to get there.

Your first round, the eligibility and the loan terms, that's standard I'm satisfied with, and that will likely eliminate.

I mean, the fact that they can't use it to pay existing debt, if they were running up debt, then there was some viability issues there.

The microloans won't be going to them.

It'll be going to viable places that have employees and helping to keep them afloat through this time period.

So I just would caution while, again, I can appreciate the need or the desire for a scoring process that we don't make it overly complex that it draws the time out where the time for the applicant becomes problematic for them.

If they get the money two weeks too late, then it doesn't matter that they get the money.

I appreciated the comment Stephen made about it being riskier, but it's also the money is being focused on the things that I think are the correct stabilizers, which goes to the point I just made about it not being used to overextend by purchasing extra property, purchasing additional equipment that's not necessary or pertinent at this time, or paying off this debt that you've racked up in the past.

And to me, I think that's a stabilizer that could lessen the risk of it just being just a complete risky endeavor that we're going forward.

Happy if anybody want to make any comments or reactions to that, but otherwise we'll do last.

Were you about to go through another round?

I just want to make one comment.

I'll just go ahead.

Just to be clear, I certainly don't want to hold up this process.

My questions about the criteria were specific going for people who don't qualify under the federal stimulus.

and I just wanted to make sure that we didn't have the kind of criteria that would throw those folks out like the federal programs.

So that was my main reason for making my comments and asking the questions I did.

My other concern is that I am concerned about the Crozet arts, excuse me, music and art school.

and I'm concerned about the Crozet Art Depot and their not being able to qualify for these other loans.

So I was trying to make sure that they would not be, that they were eligible to apply for this.

Understood.

I did.

And just to piggyback on what Liz just said, so I understand you can't say at this point which businesses would succeed.

The two businesses Liz mentioned were certainly qualified to go into the pool to be recognized or to be evaluated with the other applicants.

Okay, and now I have another question and I will apologize profusely if I have missed this.

But I just want to double check in my mind that we're talking about local small businesses.

I don't know exactly what the criteria of that is, but we certainly have lots of large businesses, chains.

I just want to make sure we're talking about folks who are what we

Yes, ma'am.

I'll just add one more caveat.

It's not just local small businesses.

It's local existing small businesses.

All right.

Thank you.

And then any other questions or comments at this time?

Hearing none, if there is a supervisor that would wish to make this motion, which is to adopt the resolution attached at C to approve the appropriation described in attachment B. So moved.

Second.

That's Diantha.

Supervisor Price made the motion.

Supervisor McKeel seconded.

Is there any further discussion?

We'll call the roll.

Ms.

Yes.

Ms.

Yes.

Ms.

Price.

Aye.

Mr. Galloway.

Yes.

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley.

Aye.

Ms.

Mallek.

Very good.

That motion carries.

Thank you, Roger.

Thank you, Stephen, for being here and available for questions.

You both have a good evening.

Thank you very much.

The next item on our agenda this evening is number 10,

HS 2019-20 Homestay Special Exception.

And I believe, Rebecca, you're here.

Good evening, board members.

Hopefully, this is my first time presenting this way, so please bear with me.

OK, so I've started my presentation.

Hopefully you can hear me and see the presentation OK.

So we wanted to remind you that the work session where we were going to review the home stays compliance program and the regulations that were adopted in August of last year, that's now rescheduled for June 3rd.

And then we are continuing to work on how we might display or provide people application information in GIS.

There's been the request that we look at how we could either show that

in GIS as a map layer or perhaps somewhere in another place under property information.

So we are taking a look at that.

We think that would be valuable information to have, not only for home stays and special exceptions, but possibly other types of applications.

So we just wanted to let you know that we're working on that and we'll keep you updated as we come up with some options.

So the first homestay that we have this evening is 2019-20, which is the applicant has named it the Gateway to Monticello because it is near Monticello.

As we've done before, we want to remind you of the homestay regulations that apply to the parcel.

It is greater than five acres, so they may rent up to five guest rooms.

and in this case the proposal is for three within an existing structure and then all of the other requirements that apply to all home stays including that the owner resides on the parcel, has approval of the home stay zoning clearance where we've verified the safety inspection and parking.

They're providing the neighbors emergency contact information and the annual safety inspections.

So we have

Four items, four regulations in the ordinance which applicants can request to waive or modify.

And in this case, the application before you is requesting the reduced step back from one property line to the east.

So I will go over the characteristics of the property for you in a minute, but we always remind you of the criteria that are in the ordinance and what we are basing our analysis on in terms of the specific request and

looking at any detriment to abutting lots or harm to public health safety or welfare for these special exceptions.

So orienting you to where this one is in particular, it is on Route 53.

It's just a couple miles east of Monticello, hence the name, and some of the other attractions in the county.

And this map also shows you the abutting property owners that would receive a notice from the county included with the application packet that the applicant submitted was a neighbor letter of support from a property owner to the east.

We did not hear any other questions or comments from the mailing that we sent from the abutting property owners.

Taking a closer look, the property is in the middle of your screen there with the blue marking there.

And it's a 13-acre parcel, mostly wooded along that property line, that eastern property line where they need the special exception from.

It's about 40 feet that the homestay, the house is located from that property line.

And then a portion of that is a wooded buffer that we measured that's actually on the applicant's property.

So this is one of the exhibits that's referenced in the report.

So based on our look at this property and their request, we've recommended approval with a limit to three guest rooms.

All right, let's start.

My order disappeared.

Just a comment.

I would just tell Rebecca she did a great job.

We would have never known that this was her first time presenting to us in this format.

I concur.

Supervisor Price?

Thank you Chair Galloway.

This is in my district.

I have no questions.

I think what we're seeing is the board is the most common request for the special exception has to do with the distance to a property line and I have no concerns with this application.

Thank you.

Thank you, and Rebecca, I think you've done a great job.

I did want to ask, there haven't been any concerns or complaints regarding this property, correct?

No.

Yes, Rebecca, thank you.

Do you have any closer photographs to show what kind of buffer does exist on the short side?

Because it looked as if it was almost not buffered at all visually from with looks like there's a big opening right there.

And so

with 180 missing feet.

Yeah, I'm sorry I didn't have a better photograph, but if you're looking at the screen there, I only have a picture in plan view, but we did measure it and it is a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees on the applicant's property, 15 or 20 feet between

And I know I've mentioned this at a previous meeting, what sort of requirements do we have that people leave those that vegetation alone?

I'm sorry, we haven't made that a condition to date, but we do look at whether the areas are substantial or not.

And in this case, it is, I'm sorry, it's not evident from the photo, but it provides that bit of buffering to the east.

Well, it is a concern.

Yeah, just one more.

Ann asked a good question, I thought.

So what are the problems with putting a condition on these that they maintain a buffer?

I mean, we've approved some that don't have a particularly good buffer.

Is there any suggestion from staff that given X number of feet, it should have a buffer, how close it is, that sort of thing.

Yes, I think at this point, we're looking at the distance that mitigates it in addition to the vegetation.

If we have one that's extremely close, then we might look at, I think we would go down that path of recommending a fence or screening.

and establishing that as a condition of approval.

So okay I'm sorry they're limited by the conditions of approval to what's there now so if they wanted to increase the parking or put on an addition to the house for the home stay then they would

Thank you, Chair Galloway.

And these are really good points.

And actually the next special exception, we're really going to see that question come up.

And I think that these are all valid points.

I really think that these are the sort of things we need to address in our general discussion.

about these which if I recall the slide correctly is coming up in June.

And I recognize that the application has to stand on the merits of that particular piece of property.

So I do think those are things that we should look at as we move forward based upon the

I think it's a 25 foot setback minimum on the side and there's only a 40 foot distance from the edge of the house to the property line at this point.

There's not a lot of space even where the property owner

interested in making some revisions, and as Ms.

Ragsdale has just pointed out, this exception is limited to the conditions as they exist today.

So I think in general, those are good questions.

Thank you.

I'm not arguing that point.

It's just we have mentioned the same things now for four different applications, and yet I don't see that we've made progress on what kind of criteria issue.

How does this staff do this?

The third buffer should not encourage our staff having to make it up as they go along.

We need to be able to have more clarity for applicants as well as keeping us out of court, really.

We can't be seen as doing something for one place and not for the other.

and when something really needs it and we have not held anybody else accountable to a standard, then it's harder to just to put it in where it's really, really needed.

So I will continue to raise these concerns.

I think that people who are pushing these commercial uses into the rural area where it does affect their neighbors, especially when they're not meeting the 125 foot setback,

that it's just a concern that we, the future owners can do this too.

We're giving up a lot when we just allow these things that do not meet the criteria.

And Supervisor Mallek, I totally agree with you.

My point was not specifically to your comments on this application, but more that these are considerations that I believe we need to rightfully bring up.

as we review the totality of the regulations as we're going to apply them.

I think that is a June meeting we have scheduled.

And I agree, we probably need to include some additional requirements, but these applicants today should not be held to a different outcome based upon the standards as they currently exist and we've been applying.

All right, very good.

Are there any other questions or comments?

Yes, I have a comment.

Would it be, and I understand the 125-yard setback and such, would it be, and it looks like we're approving a lot of these because the homes are not in the center of the development.

I'm wondering, and I'm just throwing this out as a question, would it be more feasible to say that it has to be X number of feet between residences, which would then perhaps help out more because if you give a special exemption, if you let it be shorter than 125 feet and you have the neighboring abutting property that is right next to their border, that's not gonna

It's not going to be as effective, but maybe an area of 125 feet or 150 feet between residences.

I don't know.

Maybe something to think about.

It does.

I think that as the board wrestled to arrive at the 125 setback, that there were different criterias that were put in there.

Right.

One that came to be.

and then the special exception allowed us to wrestle with the nuances of each property.

But obviously there are still points of discussion that will happen in the upcoming conversation on these items.

The only thing I wanted to put back out there for people to consider for a future, it took us a couple of years to make a correction where we had allowed the first person there to have a reduced side setback called the zero lot line.

And what this did was create a tremendous unfairness to the second person or the other homeowner who then would not be allowed to expand or do what they wanted because their neighbor had basically used up a gap.

So I will ask us to continue to be mindful of that as we think about other ways to change these approaches to the buffers.

So like I said, we are looking at each of these special exceptions.

They're all unique.

So just because we haven't been requiring a buffer

or Fence to date doesn't mean that we can't for parcels where we would recommend one.

I've been visiting the properties and looking at them on site.

And like I said, if the properties, if there was no buffering and there was a really close distance between houses, I think that might be a case where we would recommend the buffer.

We can take a look at,

Going forward, we can establish conditions for the ones that we think would be appropriate that they maintain a buffer.

So I was confused.

We have the ability to add it as a condition now.

And just to be clear, the board has that authority to impose the condition.

Thank you, Chair Galloway.

Supervisor Malek, I really appreciate that last point that you made about trying to ensure

I want to make sure that we do not have actions that unduly burden one property owner because of actions by an adjacent property owner.

What the board did to rectify last year was really significant.

The other thing I think we always have to remember is that not all of these lots are flat terrain and that very often the individuals built their homes based upon what was the best building site available on their lot and that's why very often we will see homes

that are far from centered on a piece of property.

Very often they're adjacent neighboring property or properties and so we can't always expect that there will be a minimum of 125 feet in each direction.

This particular application, for example, it's 150 feet to one side and 37 feet to the other.

You add those together and it's under 300 feet, 250 feet,

Yeah, 250 feet.

So you couldn't get the 125 even had they centered the house in the middle of that section of the property.

And I'll stop.

I just want to clarify my point.

Understood.

I guess I just lost it.

Never mind.

I'm sorry.

If there's no other comments, this is in the Scottsville District.

I move that the board approve this special exception

Attach resolution attachment G to approve the special exception with conditions contained therein for this homestay.

And just to clarify, is it attachment F?

All right, the version has been made by Supervisor Price.

And if we can call the roll, please.

Ms.

Ms.

Palmer?

Yes.

Ms.

Price?

Aye.

Mr. Galloway?

Yes.

Ms.

Ms.

Ms.

Malek?

and Supervisor Malek.

I apologize.

Thank you, Mr. Campner.

I had already flipped over to the other one as I was looking at the buffer zone.

That's fine.

spoken error, but the resolution itself is what's key.

All right, Rebecca, the next item tonight, another special exception.

This is HS-2020-13.

Thank you.

This is, as you said, Homestay-2020-13.

Graham and Helen Kessler are the applicants.

This one is a little bit different than some of the special exception requests you've seen.

It is, again, a parcel of over five acres.

It's about seven acres.

and this is one that was approved as a bed and breakfast in 2018.

So they may continue that rental of up to five guest rooms subject to those regulations.

But what they'd like to do now is include whole house rental as one of their offerings to guests.

Whole house rental is when the owner or manager is not present during the rental.

And that's limited to seven days per month.

or 45 days per year.

And home stays are expected to keep a log of that.

And then, as we mentioned before, all the other requirements apply in terms of parking, getting the zoning clearance, safety inspections, and then also providing the neighbor notice of personal, excuse me, of responsible agent slash emergency contact information if an issue does arise.

Ordinance requires that that be resolved or addressed within an hour of notification.

So in this case, again, we have the setback reduction request to one property line.

And again, the 125 reduction request.

And again, just the factors that we've discussed before.

We're analyzing these on a case-by-case basis and we can condition based on the unique characteristics of the parcels in terms of any impacts we think need to be addressed.

So this is the general location map.

It's a property on Tillman Road that's located close to the intersection of Owensville Road showing, again, the surrounding properties that were provided a notice of the request.

Submitted with the special exception request application was two letters of support from the property owners to the west where the 125-foot property line reduction is requested.

And in this case, we also received an email with concerns, but that was from an anonymous commenter in that case.

So here is a look at the particular property

again in the middle of the screen and its relationship to those properties to the west where the 125 foot setback reduction is requested.

And the exhibit that we provided shows you similar to the last request that it's about 40 feet for the home stay structure itself.

And then there is a parking area that extends over that is about that close as well.

And then the

the neighbors are to the right on the screen there that provided the letters of support in the packet.

And so in this case, similar to the last one, we are recommending approval with those conditions referencing the exhibit that limits it to the current parking and the house location.

In this case, there is not a condition to limit the number of guest rooms because the ordinance allows up to five guest rooms

and they're not proposing fewer guest rooms in terms of the rental associated with whole house rental.

Thank you.

No, I'm fine right now.

I actually have a reasonable number of comments about this, if you could indulge me a little bit.

This property is unusual.

I'm familiar with this property.

The area has quite a suburban feel to it.

As you probably read in the materials that was built in 2016, it's over 5,000 square foot house with six bedrooms, six baths, a pool, the pad in the front, I believe is a, that's right next to the other person's property, I believe is a basketball.

Area.

And shortly, relatively shortly, I'm not sure how long, afterwards, this house was put on the platform for whole house rental Airbnb.

And it existed for some period of time like that, at which point, staff

got involved and they ended up applying for the bed and breakfast to make sure that they could continue to rent the house.

The letter that I suspect most read was I thought disturbing.

And this is one of the things that Ann has brought up several times about in the past about pitting neighbors against neighbors.

and neighbors unwillingness to really come out publicly and complain about something that is clearly kind of meant to be a party house.

And I look at this piece of property, there's very little in the way of buffering.

And it's as far as lighting, traffic, the 20 cars that was talked about in the letter,

I'm quite concerned about allowing this to go back to what it was before we had regulations, quite frankly.

I recognize that it will be limited more than it was being used prior to it being a bed and breakfast.

But I'm pretty concerned about it and I think that

Staff has been bringing these forward to us to see sort of where we are and what will we approve and what will we not approve.

And I think that this particular property would probably be best just leaving it as it is as a bed and breakfast and requiring the homeowners to be there while it is rented.

So that's my comment for now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Galloway.

Supervisor Palmer, thank you for those very significant comments.

And I think it does raise a difference between a residence that is being employed in sort of a part-time income producing activity as opposed to a structure that appears

very possibly to have been designed and built specifically as a short-term hotel.

I've got concerns as well.

My concerns apply not only to this particular application, but to our policies and regulations in general.

I think this is an even more significant issue with regard to the buffer

in the sense that there's virtually no growth, no vegetation between the structure and the property line here.

Whereas at least in the last one we just approved there was to be some minimal buffering.

share some of the same concerns and I see that they have about nine events going on in the future with groups.

So I agree with Supervisor Palmer and Supervisor Price.

I too have concerns and I did want to ask Rebecca, have there been any other kind of

So there was, I'm referring to the violation history here, there was the initial concern that was reported to us that they were renting without a permit that Ms.

Palmer mentioned.

So that was in 2018.

and in 2018, they got the permit.

And in July of 2019, we had the concern reported to us that they were renting without the owner present.

And we contacted them and the owners stay in the basement of the house.

So we discussed that with them and they updated their website to be clear, their listings that the owners are present during rental and on site.

and they included a lot of information in their packet regarding the rental and their response to the neighbor concerns and their lease agreement and they wanted me to mention that in terms of the presentation and also we mentioned

that you can either approve, deny, or defer this application.

So if you think that needs some further thought or some conditions added to it that the applicants would request a deferral in that case if that's necessary.

Rebecca, what's the lease?

I referred to it as a lease.

It was the rental agreement that was provided by the applicant in their application packet and what it covers in terms of their limitations on guests.

It was part of the application.

Just to comment, Liz, I appreciate very much your perspective because of course not being familiar with the House and your being aware of the situation really helps.

And I do agree that it sounds like this is one of the situations that really caused us to talk so very carefully about an ordinance to begin with.

So I appreciate that perspective.

Ward.

Yeah, I haven't had a turn yet.

Is it my turn?

Thank you.

This to me is where it crosses the line.

Because without it and plantings on the fence, there is not sufficient buffer to give the neighbors protection from the connectivity heard of happening on this property.

I heard just anecdotally of many other houses being built in the White Hall district for this very purpose.

As law continues to allow all these things to happen without conditions, I think it is a big mistake.

My question right now to Rebecca is, did you inspect this basement accommodation?

I'm sorry, I am having trouble hearing you, but I think the question was, did we inspect the basement?

And our co-compliance staff handled that complaint and did that field work.

At the time, the complaint was made last July.

I just visited the outside of the property, but I didn't personally go in the basement myself.

Supervisor Malek, we're having trouble hearing you.

Thank you, Chair Galloway.

So Rebecca, did somebody actually visit the basement?

So there's, the basement is not proposed for guest rental and our code compliance staff did verify that when they investigated the complaint in 2019, there is the requirement that they

reside there and be present during all the other rental throughout the year.

And that would be verified.

We can verify that again.

They provided, um, a number of pieces of documentation.

Um, and we can certainly do another inspection before we would issue a zoning clearance for a home stay.

If there's any questions remaining about that.

Yes, I'm just very hesitant on whole house rental in this particular case because of the other violations and they do have, they are able to rent it out otherwise.

For them not being there, I think that's problematic for the neighbors and also without any shielding.

So I agree with Supervisor Palmer and Supervisor Price.

to state Supervisor Mallek was trying to make the comment and I quote, my concern is that a buffer planted and offense is essential for any approval of continuation of the operation.

I'm not in favor of allowing whole house.

At this time board, there is, there is two, we can take a motion, we can take action to deny or approve.

There was also floated an idea that the item could be deferred.

Can I just do a quick poll?

I'm just wondering if we defer it what we're deferring it for, given, I mean, I recognize that that the issue of the buffers can be fixed.

but I'm not sure how we handle the largess of this place as a whole house rental with a pool in a really kind of suburban atmosphere and it so lends itself to large groups

making noise at night with the owners not there, that I would hate to set something up for the neighbors to have to deal with on a regular basis when there's clearly a neighbor who feels very uncomfortable about being public about their concerns.

And we don't even know if that's one of the people who gave the

gave the letter of approval because I recognize that some people are just very uncomfortable getting into a fight with their neighbors.

I hate to get in a fight with my neighbors.

I've put up with a lot of stuff over the years because I don't want to be in a fight with my neighbors.

So my tendency is just to go ahead and keep it as a bed and breakfast as it's been operating.

because it does have full use of the property, but we can be assured that somebody is there all the time.

Now, if these people wanted to apply for a addition where they have a home manager in the house, that was one of the options for these home stay.

Is that correct, Rebecca?

That is one thing that people can apply for is to have a home manager living in there.

They don't necessarily have to be the owner.

So that's one option, but there would be somebody in the house dealing with the noise, et cetera.

So the, what we did with the update in August is clarify that the expectation is that the owner or manager be present during rental, except for the whole house provision.

So the expectation, you know, under the bed and breakfast regulations, it is someone's residence.

And under the old regulations, it doesn't have to be owner occupied, but in this case, they're indicating that it is their residence, their family home, and that they are present during rental.

when guests are there.

So they wouldn't have to, you know, I don't know what, as far as a resident manager, you know, if they have someone else there while the place is being rented, we haven't discussed that with them and that isn't what they've proposed so far.

If they added an addition, you know, that wasn't associated with the homestay or they added bedrooms to the house,

They can do that.

Okay, then I guess I would prefer just to deny and keep it as a bed and breakfast.

Would be my preference.

Thank you, Chair Galloway.

Supervisor Palmer, thank you for those.

I mean, I thought you brought up a very important point and Ms.

Ragsdale, thank you for your explanation.

As I understand it, if you rent a number of bedrooms,

then the requirement is that the owner or an agent, the resident manager as the term may be, must be present.

When the whole house is rented, then there is no requirement that the owner or resident manager be present.

And that is exactly the concern I think that has been demonstrated by this particular situation.

So I would support Ms.

Palmer's last comment in terms of

I'm not supporting this proposal.

Supervisor Malek, let's do a check in and see if we can hear you.

Thank you.

So I also would support denying rather than deferring.

And my question is, what is the status of the three strikes and you're out criteria, which has already been adopted?

Well, there was no three strikes.

You're out before August 7th, and we haven't had any

With three strikes you're out is what I think that was Ann's question.

And I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.

I probably jumped in.

Me too.

So an existing prior to August business, it's still held accountable for that.

It's just that they haven't had any violations since then.

Well, this property has had the two violations, the complaints that we investigated that we have logged.

And that was prior to the adoption of the short term rental registry.

So their three strikes you're out, we haven't started counting the strikes for them because they don't have any after August 7th.

That's a better way to put it.

It applies.

Thank you.

It sounds like there's not an interest to defer at this point.

If there's no more questions, I will make a motion.

If I can summarize the reasons that I've heard.

Please.

Because

The motion is to deny the special exception because approving the special exception would result in a detriment to the abutting lot of harm to the public welfare based on the information in the letter from the anonymous neighbor, its history of use as explained in that letter, as explained by staff and by Supervisor Palmer.

All right.

Great.

I'd like to make just one additional comment regarding the letter.

When we've been dealing with these Airbnb type items and some of the concerns that get brought up, if concerns are being forwarded to us about the Airbnb activity,

that there are other ordinances such as noise that whether there's an Airbnb there or not can be followed.

So I want to make sure that whether it's an Airbnb or not that there are other means to get noise violations or other types of violations handled.

I don't want to forget that.

You can be having a huge party and not be an Airbnb and have lots of people at your house and making a lot of noise at the pool.

May I make one more comment on that?

Yes.

And I completely agree with you, but what we're seeing in some areas is a reluctance to report or a situation like this where you're really in more of a suburban area

and you're sort of setting up a commercial activity that unlike when we have event space where we have people going out, we have staff going out and talking about noise levels at property lines and all that sort of thing, we don't have that here.

And so I'm reluctant when we set commercial situations up in residential areas

that pit neighbors against neighbors.

And so, yes, I understand your comment, Ned, and I appreciate it.

All right, the motion is moved by Supervisor Spadafore.

The motion was seconded by Director Price.

Call the roll.

The motion is to deny.