Board of Supervisors Regular First Meeting   7/7/2021

All right, if everyone would 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, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, board.

All right, thank you, Board.

So moved.

Second.

All right, we can call the vote.

Mr. Gallaway?

Yes.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Ms.

Mallek?

Yes.

McKeel?

Yes.

Aye.

I'll just go right into those two items.

Any announcements today?

I'm just looking forward to hearing all about the wonderful 4th of July parades from our other supervisors.

Supervisor McKeel, any announcements today?

Thank you.

Supervisor Prince?

Thank you, Chair Galloway.

Supervisor Malek, announcements?

So I hope we'll be able to figure out another way to accomplish that.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley?

Thank you.

I don't have paper here today.

That'll take us to number six, Proclamations and Recognitions.

All right, Supervisor McKeel.

Second.

Mallek?

Yes.

McKeel?

Yes.

Palmer?

Yes.

Good afternoon, your time's up.

So thank you.

I'll go in order that I saw the hands come up.

Thank you.

Supervisor Malek and Supervisor McKeel.

They were magnificent.

Supervisor McKeel.

Thank you.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley?

Thank you.

Yes, Supervisor Palmer?

Thank you.

Have a good afternoon.

So Supervisor Price, if you would go through our guidelines.

Thank you, Chair Galloway.

Who is our first speaker today?

The first speaker is Karen Rubin.

Good afternoon.

Can you hear me?

Good afternoon.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

And our next speaker?

Our next speaker is Robin Tanner.

Good afternoon, are you there?

Robin Tanner, if you wish to speak towards item number 10, please speak now.

I have nothing to say at this time.

Do we have any other speakers signed up today?

We have one more, Carolyn Clasco.

All right, good afternoon.

Can everybody hear me?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Any other speakers today?

We do not.

Thank you for those who spoke today and we'll move to

Is there a motion to adopt as amended?

Second.

Alright, we can call the vote.

Mr. Gallaway?

Yes.

Palmer?

Yes.

Price?

I'll let you lead off there.

Thank you.

Supervisor Palmer, any comments here?

But I don't have a problem not approving it until those things come through, if that's just a relatively short few months or something like that.

Thank you Chair Galloway.

You're welcome.

All right, Supervisor McKeel, any comments?

Are there things that could start to be worked on and addressed?

So we're talking about three of the

Thank you.

Supervisor Price, did you follow up here, or I know you heard some conversation, but I'll

I would just like to hear from the other supervisors if they have any other comments.

Supervisor Mallek?

Thank you.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.

Florida.

and then the others would follow behind.

Peffia?

Yes, those affordability periods are under discussion with that developer package, correct.

OK, so what are the three things that, if this were approved, which I'm not sure I'm in favor of yet, but what are the three things that we're holding back on?

And Jody, can you help me out here?

Thank you.

So all those three things are open for debate and discussion with the developers through this discussion of a developer package.

Does it make sense to you all that we do it now or that we pass it maybe in a few months when you have a better understanding of what is being discussed and negotiated, so to speak?

Thank you.

Would that be true?

Or whatever your pleasure would be, sir, but we can work with whatever you direct us to do.

Thank you Chair Galloway and I appreciate the patience of the board and the additional commentary from County staff on this.

So I would be prepared to move that we adopt the housing policy.

Supervisor Palmer, I'll just go through our order.

I'm fine and ready to second Donna's motion.

Supervisor McKeel, any additional remarks or comments here?

Thanks.

Supervisor Mallek?

And I'm also ready to vote when we're ready.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley, any final comments or remarks?

Yes, hearing everyone's comments and comments from the staff, which I very much appreciate, I'm ready to go ahead and move forward also.

We can officially do that.

Second.

OK, we can vote.

Mr. Gallaway?

Yes.

Price?

Jody, thank you.

Thank you all.

And Supervisor McKeel, the item that you had pulled, which was 8, was it 8.5?

I don't know, Greg, if you want to make any comment or not.

Both of those locations, just a reminder that a location should be pursued.

Thanks.

All right.

Second.

Just to be clear, this is to set it for a public hearing.

This is just to set it for the public hearing, but this would be added as information as we come back for public hearing.

All right, we can call the vote.

Aye.

That item is

Hello.

I cannot hear y'all, but hold one second.

Someone say that's a good thing.

And then I will turn it over to you.

Supervisor Palmer?

I've lost track of our policy on that.

This one, since we did receive a letter of concern from the neighbor, this one had to be kept on the action item agenda.

Thank you.

Supervisor McKeel.

I did speak with Claudette about this, the clerk.

And that would be when it would shift.

Thanks.

Supervisor Price?

I have no questions or concerns.

Supervisor Malek?

Thank you.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.

Second.

Yes.

Aye.

Thank you, Leah.

Good afternoon.

Are you seeing the screen?

It's not in display mode yet, but we can see your screen.

And I'll answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you.

Supervisor Pomer.

Thank you.

Supervisor McKeel.

Thank you.

Supervisor Prince.

Thank you.

Supervisor Malek.

Thank you.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley?

I don't have any other questions and I go along with your recommendations.

What was the date, Liz, you might know that, the date of that 2008, the sewer approval?

I can pull it off, but... Yeah, that's good.

But David, other than that sewer request, which was the last one, has this been in front of us a few other times since 2017?

Mr. Gallaway, I don't know if that answers your questions fully, but those have been the legislative reviews that we've looked at primarily for that private school use Supervisor Proctor, do you have a follow up there?

Was the church limited to the current footprint, question mark?

So if a building was theoretically proposed that was some other use, a commercial use permitted under CO zoning, that building should not be able to be approved and also have a connection to the jurisdictional area without a further amendment.

If the church were to be rebuilt and if the bunkhouse were to be rebuilt, they are restricted to the current footprint?

But any other use, such as the private school or the other uses permitted under CO, would not.

So the church could be larger than it is today?

Yes.

OK.

It did provide a caveat that would allow church uses, religious assembly uses, to have a new building.

So anyway, I can stop talking.

or David Further on that item, what are the ins and outs of that, the feasibility of it, etc.

So those would be the steps.

And then as David just asked for clarity there, would either Supervisor Palmer and the others just restate what you would want to have happen in that time frame?

I know that I we can go over those are a little overwhelming to look at 20-some uses so it might be better to have a report on it but in terms of speculating what might happen to the property that's difficult for us to do but we can certainly give you the uses permitted by the zoning ordinance that are by right uses and then also the legislative ones where you have some discussion on approval and denial

Yes, that's very helpful.

Supervisor McKeel.

Thank you.

The chair and the vice chair, maybe David, we have to have a conversation or Mr. Campner, you need to give me direction on if it's allowed during this type of action that we can build in something for the applicant to speak to us because that may be useful.

scheduled as a public hearing so that the applicant has the full amount of time, 10 minutes to present their case and the public has the opportunity to speak on the matter as well.

And then if it is a public hearing, we can bring that back at a future consent to have it come back that way.

We can bring it back that way.

We can certainly set a schedule for a public hearing so that we can hear from the public as well during that time.

to make presentations when that's not the normal.

Usually you get them by consent agenda unless there's a recommendation for the body.

And then by the time this comes to our next pre-agenda meeting, Mr. Richardson will iron out exactly how and when this will come back to us working with the clerk's office.

So we'll confirm that, but I think that's the date that gives us the most time to put that information together.

Supervisor Malle.

So they'll have to figure that out.

Because we really don't have a standard for a special exemption.

And we recognize that.

Thank you very much.

All right, forward.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

So for staff recommendation, we do recommend that the board adopt attached resolutions to designate Burnt Mill Road, Hammock Scout Road, Harris Creek Road, and Red Hills School Road as road-resting roads to be paved this coming fiscal year.

Supervisor Palmer, questions?

Is that what you said?

Let me double check here.

But tell me about what you perceive on average the number of people that actually respond to the letters that the county sends out about paving.

get board endorsement of the secondary six-year plan, adopt the secondary six-year plan, as well as the upcoming resolutions for rural rustic roads.

2021, what that traffic count is?

I would need to dive into that.

So I'll let you get a stab at some of that.

also to the tracking of development rights that was discussion of that as well I think if Kevin wants to add more to this but I think it's a lot of collaboration internally with other planners and be able to dive into that we have staff has not been able to commit time fully diving into that yet but we noticed tracking purposes that that would be beneficial within these designation of rural rustic roads

And wineries and all that sort of thing that we now have out in the rural areas.

Are you referencing the county priority lists of unpaved roads?

What's left on it, you know, as we go through these.

I don't know if I'd be able to provide it during this presentation, but I think it would be useful for you.

So from what we've seen in reviewing these, there's no significant increases in traffic on most of these rural roads according to that VDOT data.

Thank you.

Supervisor McKeel, any questions here?

Thank you very much.

And again, thank you for your presentation.

All right, Supervisor Malek.

Thank you.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.

Thank you.

Do you have a further question or follow up?

Daniel, can you comment on that or Kevin?

Is that what you're suggesting?

But no, I would not suggest that you go and look for trouble.

So, yes.

And, you know, so anyway.

So your comments are noted and we will try and see how we can incorporate that in the future.

Are we ready for to take action here?

Have we done the public hearing yet?

This was a regular action item.

OK.

This is just a regular action item.

I'm happy to make it.

Second.

Okay, we can call the vote.

McKeel?

Yes.

Palma?

Yes.

Price?

Aye.

We'll do a recess after.

I'll go with a five minute break now if that's all right.

Thank you.

I'm ready.

In your line.

We are back from recess.

In our next item, number 12, proposed 2022 legislative priorities, Mr. Campner.

Supervisor Palmer, any reactions here?

I still think this is a good thing.

Supervisor McKeel?

I mean, am I not correct?

And I think the low civil penalties that you're referring to are ones we discussed yesterday, looking at Chapter 9 of the County Code dealing with certain parking violations that are $10 and $25.

Well, yeah, and I don't know if we have others, but I'm really happy to do this because I think that's the way to go, but I do recognize that some of our fines are probably going to need to go up.

And so that kind of civil penalty framework is quite different than what we see in a lot of our current ordinances that do identify a civil penalty.

All right.

Thank you.

Supervisor Price.

Supervisor Mallek.

Thank you.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.

I do agree that I think the majority that this will work for, and I certainly agree with this, but if you get into someone where they just ignore this and it goes on and on and they ignore the fines, are there any potential for a criminal violation?

Yes, in picking up on the theme of the suggestion from one of the local representatives, if we borrow from the way the civil penalties for zoning violations goes, provides that once you reach a threshold, and right now it is $5,000, then the locality can transition over to criminal enforcement.

Thank you.

All right, I'm supportive of it being here.

Yes, so I'll stop here.

Help me with that.

Environmental risks would be dealt with more promptly than some that have been lingering just because they've existed and were just newly discovered or newly complained about.

And is there any way that we can collect court costs when we have to take these people to court?

That could certainly be part of the legislation.

And when I say could we collect court costs, can we collect county, is there a, can there be a fee for your staff?

controversial, but that's something we can look at.

You know, it does push people, but if we don't think we have the staff to do it, then I'm pretty concerned about that because people aren't going to take it seriously if we say every 10 days and then nobody comes out to check them in a month and a half.

It's mainly the time, the staff time that is spent.

That's it on me for now.

Supervisor McKinney?

Thanks.

Supervisor Christ.

Supervisor Malek.

There's a model for that in some other legislation.

We can look at that and include that.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley?

Can it go beyond the $5,000?

Once you reach that limit and you still need to enforce, you either seek injunctive relief or criminal penalties.

Thank you.

I'm supportive of this remaining in there and we can continue to discuss exactly how we want it to be by the time we get to the representatives in the fall.

And I'll stop here and invite the board to discuss.

And so, yes, I'd like to keep it.

Thanks.

Supervisor Malek.

Thank you.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.

Thank you.

So Greg.

But I'm assuming that this will be an ongoing priority for the board to seek legislation enabling localities to impose impact fees in lieu of cash proffers.

This is great.

Just in the interest of time, is there any objection here?

So this is that proposal and I'll stop now and let the board discuss.

Supervisor Palmer, any comments here?

Is that what you're suggesting?

Yes.

All right, Supervisor McKeel.

Thanks.

Supervisor Curtis I support it, thank you Supervisor Malek I support it too but would also suggest that it not be restricted to rural roads because there are lots of areas in the growth area that have abusive speeding and great danger provided and having camera boxes in lots of places where you move the cameras around and nobody knows where they are I think would help to get us more compliance with our really terrible driving behavior that we have around here now

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley?

Thank you.

I'm good with this one.

But I'll stop here and open it for discussion.