Board of Supervisors Regular First Meeting   8/4/2021

Good afternoon.

I call the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to order for our August 4th, 2021 1 p.m.

meeting.

This meeting is being held pursuant to and in compliance with ordinance number 20-A16, an ordinance to ensure the continuity of government during the COVID-19 disaster.

The supervisors who are electronically present at this meeting are Supervisor Donna Price of the Scottsville District,

Supervisor Ann Mallek of the White Hall District, Supervisor Bea LaPisto-Kirtley of the Rivanna District, Supervisor Liz Palmer of the Samuel Miller District, Supervisor Diantha McKeel of the Jack Jouett District, and myself, Supervisor Ned Gallaway of the Rio District.

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.

Participation will include the opportunity to comment on those matters for which comments from the public will be received.

And also with us today, we have our county executive, Mr. Jeff Richardson, our county attorney, Mr. Greg Kempner, our board clerk, Ms.

Claudette Borgeson, and our senior deputy clerk, Mr. Travis Morris.

Other staff will introduce themselves throughout the meeting at the appropriate time.

We had some dogs participate in the pledge today.

And now if everyone would please join in a moment of silence.

And that will bring us to number four of the adoption of our final agenda.

And we do have some changes to make.

At Supervisor Price's request item 8.4, authorization to schedule a public hearing to adopt an ordinance regarding the formation of a regional cigarette tax administration board will be pulled.

Yes, thank you, Chair Galloway.

Yes, Ms.

Allhouse will have a few comments to make on that, wherever you want to put it on the action agenda.

If not, then we'll go from there.

And then we're also pulling item 8.8 from consent agenda.

That is SC 2021-24, Banyamo's special exception.

That's pulled out.

Very good.

Any other changes?

I made note of that and missed that one.

Thank you.

Okay.

If no other changes, is there a motion to adopt as amended?

Very good.

Mr. Beasle-Kirtley?

Yes.

Aye.

Ms.

Mallek?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Ms.

Palmer?

Yes.

Ms.

Price?

Aye.

Yes.

Very good.

The agenda is adopted.

And that will take us to number five, brief announcements by board members and we'll go through our speaking order for today.

Thank you, Chair Galloway.

I was on vacation last week with family for my mother's 91st birthday, which meant I was not here when that microstorm

struck severely in the southern part of the county in Samuel Miller and Scottsville districts.

I do want to express my great appreciation, however, for our deputy county executive, Doug Walker, who called me first thing in the morning after that storm struck, as well as Mayor Ron Smith and town administrator Matt Lawless and Appalachian Power for keeping me informed throughout the next couple of days of the actions that were being taken.

to restore electricity and take care of our community through the cooling station at the Walton Middle School and so like I say I just want to express a great deal of appreciation for the very positive actions taken by so many to take care of our community.

Thank you.

Local 4-H members will be selling their livestock at the combined Albemarle-Flovanna 4-H sale, which is during the Flovanna County Fair on Saturday, August 21st.

It begins at 1 p.m.

Buyers are treated to lunch beforehand, so you can go at noon if you're going to buy something and have lunch.

and then it's going to be held at Pleasant Grove Park which is on the shores of the Rivanna in Palmyra.

So there'll be lots of wonderful hundred dollar chickens and goats and other wonderful things to buy but it is great to see the kids succeed.

On to less fun news, the drought.

Urban people who have not been out in the countryside may not be aware of how severe this dryness is.

We have streams drying up all over the place in the countryside and pastures are gone, hay fields are gone, corn fields are gone.

and even in the lucky areas where people might have had a two-tenths of an inch shower in July, those areas that formerly were green are over with.

So Liz and Jeff, I am asking you to be on high alert that RWSA be preparing customers.

If we don't start getting rain, there's going to be a precipitous drop in supply.

It happens very fast, like two, three, four feet a day at South Fork when things

get to that saturation point.

We know that when the students return, which I think is the 18th of August, consumption is skyrocketing.

So I just want us to be alert for that so that we don't get caught unawares and then have the complaints from people saying, well, nobody told me this was going on, and so I've been just using water as usual.

I think we have to be super careful.

Even worse news is neighbors and residents from several different districts in the grocery store and also calling me about the United States Postal Service.

I know every one of us has had concerns about this for a good year or more, but what I did not know until this past week is that postal employees at several different stations in our county have been told by their managers they are not allowed to

Thort mail, even into post office boxes, or deliver mail because the packages from Amazon have top priority.

Apparently, they are hiring.

They say they don't have enough staff to do the mail, but they're hiring separate people to do only packages.

And packages are being delivered on Saturdays and Sundays.

So, Adam Wack, I don't know what we can do except perhaps to talk to the governor because maybe the governor's conference group can get to the president.

I think it's going to have to be at that level.

This morning I received an email from our lobbyist for the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks and I will forward that to people on a break today if anybody has a chance.

Our senators and congressmen, there are transportation amendments again being placed to allow overweight, over-length trucks on the federal highways, which then automatically means that they're on our country roads because we cannot turn them back.

And logging trucks are the specific thing they're asking for right now.

Those are already huge and already carrying 70,000 to 80,000 pounds routinely.

They want to go even higher.

And no one is going to be taking care of the road damage that's done from that.

So I will share that with you as soon as I'm able.

And I hope that people can send off an email or something about that.

And that is all I have in the news front.

Thank you.

No announcements today, but I do understand that Pickleball is going very well in Darden Town.

So once again, I thank everybody.

Other than that, everything's fine.

Just to reiterate what Donna said,

I was actually also out of town last weekend, very, very close to where Donna was by coincidence in north Georgia, which we were surprised to find out we were both in the same place.

But with respect to the terrible storm in southern Albemarle, thank you to all the staff that helped out in that and certainly all the citizens that stepped up to help their neighbors.

was just a horrendous and strange storm.

But that's all I really have to add for today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Just to piggyback on that, some of us remember the derechios that came through here a few years back.

and I just am really thankful for the residents of Scottsville that nobody was hurt because we remember how awful those storms can be.

Some of us, in fact, I believe with one derecho, remember some of us were at the county office building trying to make our way home through the mess on the roads.

It was really incredible.

So just terrifying.

A couple of things that I have.

First, I would really like to thank

the person who sent to us anonymously the book.

And I understand that all the, I think, all of the supervisors received one.

And I know that my planning commissioner said all the planning commissioners received one.

But we received in the mail the New York Times bestseller, The Color of Law, a forgotten history of how our government segregated America.

And I really appreciated getting it.

So if you're listening, thank you.

I am reading it and it is a very fascinating book and I'm learning a lot and connecting some dots that I've often wondered about.

So I really appreciate that.

I highly recommend the book to anyone who is interested in this type of information.

The other thing to pick up on the postal end, just to say that one of the problems I think we have too, and I don't know how we even address it, but of course shipping for Amazon is free.

and some of the stores I've noticed have stopped carrying products that I have purchased in the past and I now have to get them from Amazon.

One of those items is my coffee and I ordered the other day four boxes of coffee and failed to note, as I should have, that they needed to be put in one package.

They sent me four boxes and four separate boxes separately.

So we really have to remember when we are ordering to try and remember to do that and to reduce the number of packages because they're not thinking about it.

They're just sending them through the system.

Not good at all.

The other point I'd like to make about the drought is many of us that live

in areas with woods around us, and certainly we all have trees and brush around our houses.

I hope that people are really being careful with their cigarettes.

You shouldn't be throwing cigarette butts out of the windows anyway or smoking in the woods as we're walking, but that is a huge concern when it gets this dry.

And I don't know how we notify people or address it or send out the alerts about that, but it would really be

Great to make people aware that they need to be extra careful with their cigarettes and their burning and fires or whatever they might be doing burning them.

And the last thing was I think many of you all probably saw in the paper this morning

And I received it from the blurb last night in the Richmond Times that the state has now launched their historical marker program.

And we have in Charlottesville, in our community,

Asian American Pacific Islander person that's going to be recognized on a record, which is really pretty exciting.

W.W.

Yen, I don't have a lot of information at this point, but I'm sure we'll be following that in our community.

and if you're interested, there was an interesting article today in the Daily Progress about this gentleman and it's really nice to see that the historic markers are being used these days for African Americans and people of Asian descent and we're really starting to diversify those markers, which is great.

All right, thank you.

And I do not have any announcements today.

The next item on the agenda is proclamations and recognitions.

We do not have any, either of those two scheduled for today.

Chair Galloway, Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley raised her hand.

Yes, I neglected to say that in case I don't make Chair Galloway and Vice Chair Price and all the other supervisors, if I don't make the entire meeting, it's because I'm out of town, actually out of the country.

So I'm about six hours ahead of everybody.

So I will try to do what I can to stay up as late as I can.

Figure out ways to keep people awake, Bea.

All right.

Thank you.

Number seven is from the public.

Matters not listed for public hearing on the agenda or on matters previously considered by the board or matters that are pending before the board.

And I understand we do have a sign up today.

Thank you, Chair Galloway.

During the time set aside for matters not listed for public hearing on the agenda, individuals may address the Board of Supervisors concerning matters previously considered by the Board or matters that are pending before the Board, other than items listed on the agenda for public hearing.

Individuals are allowed three minutes to speak and the sign-up sheet is managed by the Clerk's Office.

Timekeeping is conducted through a timer.

The timer will commence when you begin speaking and this begins your allotted time.

You will be notified when the three minutes are up and you are requested to bring your comments to a close as your microphone will be muted after about five more seconds.

In order to give all speakers equal treatment and courtesy, the board requests that speakers adhere to the following guidelines.

When called to address the board, please state your name and, if you live in Albemarle County, your magisterial district.

Address your comments directly to the board as a whole.

If you have written material or other supporting documents, you may email them to the clerk to be included in the record.

If you represent a group or organization, you may identify the group to be recognized.

If you exceed your allotted time, you will be asked to enter comments, and as mentioned, the microphone will be muted after a few more seconds.

If a speaker does not use all allocated time, the unused time may not be shared with another speaker.

Speakers are permitted one opportunity to comment during the public comment periods per meeting, and back and forth date is not permitted.

You are reminded that all comments are live-streamed, recorded, and published on the Albemarle County website.

If participating by phone, please press star 9 to let us know you want to speak.

And if by Zoom, please remain muted until you are called to speak.

Thank you.

Can everyone hear me?

Yes, good afternoon.

Thank you, good afternoon.

I'll begin now.

Respected members of the board, I am Vipul Patel, the property owner at 943 Jefferson Lake Drive of the Scottsville Magisterial District.

The June 2nd meeting, which led to a deferral of my homestay application, board members may have unintentionally misrepresented and or struggled with respect to my application.

This is not personal, but rather an input towards proper governance as the assumptions and hypotheticals were beyond comprehension.

Please allow me to address the specific concerns of board members Palmer, Mallek, and McKeel.

This current staff report fully addresses your concerns of June 2nd.

Supervisor Palmer stated, quote unquote, one, this feels almost like, legally I know it's not, a rezoning of a residential property.

Two, we are all discussing what ifs.

Three, this was clearly designed from the beginning to be a commercial operation.

And four, this is a hotel for God's sake.

For the records, Mr. Campner responded, it's not a rezoning, reaching the limits of the home state framework that the board created when it adopted the ordinances.

And Mr. Svoboda concurred, I fully disagree with the remarks designed from the beginning to be a commercial operation and of a hotel.

Supervisor Malek stated, quote, applicants said there's no longer a house here, unquote.

For the records, I never stated such at any time and the 1942 built house remains intact.

Also the quote, cart before the horse interjection does not apply.

Please accept the fact that I have not sought an excuse or sympathy towards my homestay application permit and the current renovations initiated on valid permits issued by the department.

Supervisor McKeel stated

Quote, we've never had a house property renting five rooms there and another resident manager and yet another, which I think is referring to the cottage.

We're really putting a lot of people at that ingress.

Data, past traffic data doesn't make any difference because you had one house and that people that lived in that house knew that road.

To me, that makes a huge difference, unquote.

For the records, Jefferson Lake Drive, established by deed of 1942, is a VDOT approved private entrance.

Current staff report further clarifies the driveway as, quote, historically, Jefferson Lake Drive provided access to six residential units, unquote.

Thus, the ingress-egress to one house is inaccurate.

2.

VDOT crash reports from 2014 to March 2021 indicates none at Jefferson Lake Drive.

By all standards, crash data is relevant to safety.

Mr. Patel, as we've done for others in the past, if you had additional comments, you can send the written comments to the clerk

to be part of the official record and made available to the supervisors if you've not done so already.

And we will go to number eight, our consent agenda.

And this will be minus item 8.4.

minus item 8.8 and minus the December 18, 2019 minutes.

So we'll need a motion to approve as amended.

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley.

Aye.

Ms.

Malle.

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel.

Yes.

Ms.

Palmer.

Yes.

Ms.

Price?

Aye.

Yes.

All right, very good.

The consent agenda is passed.

And I believe item 8.4, I've been told Lori is available, that we can address that item right now.

Oh, there you are.

Good to see you over there, Lori.

First, Supervisor Price, this was pulled at your request.

We'll lead into that and then we'll turn it to Lori.

Yeah, thank you Chair Galloway.

I ask that this item be called be pulled from the consent agenda because a copy of the proposed ordinance was not available at the time that the agenda was being set and I think in terms of transparency for our community members it makes sense for us to have some discussion.

At this point we do not have a final draft but we do have indications of where things are going and I just think it's important that we provide some information to our community members when we don't have the

Great.

I will.

Yes, thank you, members of the board and Lori Allshouse.

I'm the Assistant CFO for Policy and Partnerships.

I work in the Department of Finance and Budget.

I'm here today with David Blunt, who's the Deputy Director and Director of Legislative Services from Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, and also Jen Lin, who's our Chief of Revenue Administration, if there's any questions for them.

Right now, I just have a couple slides.

Mr. Bowman is helping me with the slides today, so if he would like to bring those up and I can share some information about this ordinance.

So Ms.

Price brought up a good question about why is it that this ordinance is not attached to this consent agenda item.

And I'll share with you some information as why it's not and how we'll be sharing that with you shortly.

So what we're asking today is for authorization to schedule a public hearing on September 1 to consider adopting this ordinance.

And so what's going on, and Mr. Blunt is here for any additional questions, is this is an ordinance that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is circulating amongst many jurisdictions.

As you may recall from earlier conversations we've had about the potential regional cigarette tax board, there'll be

possibly seven other jurisdictions that may be joining the Thomas Jefferson Planning District as they develop a regional board for our region for potentially administering our cigarette tax.

So the initial draft ordinance and agreement was prepared by Thomas Jefferson Planning District staff.

They did it in close coordination.

with us here at the county, and they had distributed it to other jurisdictions for comments and feedback.

What they like is one ordinance to be used by all the different jurisdictions so that we all use the same ordinance.

The agreement that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District put together was modified after agreements from Northern Virginia and Southwest Virginia.

The ordinance would establish a regional board which would efficiently administer the collection, accounting, disbursement, compliance monitoring, and the enforcement of cigarette taxes assessed by localities that desired to join the board.

So it would be efficiently done by one entity.

The regional board would act as the agent of localities for the administration of respective cigarette tax ordinances if they're passed.

The ordinance about the regional board would include an operating agreement establishing the regional board's powers, duties, and other procedures.

The regional board would become effective upon the approval of at least two of the localities that Thomas Jefferson Planning District's reaching out to.

And staff will present this proposed ordinance and the operating agreement prior to the opening of the public hearing on September 1.

So we'll share more information

about it again at the beginning of that public hearing if you approve us to go to public hearing.

I have one more quick slide and then I'm available for questions.

On the next slide just basically says as part of the ordinance there will be an agreement.

So you have an ordinance to actually set up the regional tax board and include it in that ordinance

will be a reference to the actual agreement by the localities to put the board together.

So I just also wanted to share with you a couple highlights from the agreement that has been drafted and is being circulated for people to look at.

The agreement would establish a regional board's powers, duties, and procedures.

Will it be one representative from each jurisdiction would be a member on the board?

The board would ensure that the cigarette taxes are assessed and collected according to all the respective ordinance rules and procedures.

And it would ensure that the regional board has liability insurance and an administrator, so it would set up the functions of the board.

It would regulate their disbursements of receipts and their management of how they manage all the funds.

and the agreement would not be implemented until the adoption of the ordinances and the execution of the agreement by at least two jurisdictions.

So those are the components of what would be presented on September 1st for a public hearing.

So that's all I have and I do have others here if you have questions.

Supervisor Price, any questions here?

I have no questions.

I want to thank Ms.

Allshouse for presenting exactly the type of information I think is important.

I understand that the draft of the ordinance is now available.

I don't believe we need that today.

After other supervisors have had their opportunity, I'm prepared to make a motion that the board schedule a hearing on September 1st.

Thank you, Chair Galloway.

The other one that's come to mind is, what would the voting majority be on this board representing the seven jurisdictions?

I'm going to go ahead and ask Mr. Blunt if he would like to respond to that question.

And I believe there are eight jurisdictions, right?

Yes, good afternoon.

This is David Blount with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.

Yes, Ms.

Mallek, voting would be envisioned to be a simple majority.

We could start out with seven.

We could start out with eight.

Very good.

Thank you.

And I guess if it's an even number, there has to be a determination whether 4-4 is a no or a yes.

Thank you very much.

We will.

Yes, ma'am.

No.

Thank you very much.

And I appreciate Ms.

Aleshaus, the explanation.

And I'm good.

I'm good.

Yes, ma'am.

Mr. Chair and Supervisor McKeel, we have four of the five counties in the planning district region.

So that would be in addition to you all, we have Redanna, Nelson, and Green.

I think it was just good for everybody to know exactly what counties we're talking about and of course the city.

Thank you.

I don't have any questions.

I really appreciate Lori and David coming in very quickly on this and I appreciate Donna catching this for us because it was a good catch.

All right, very good.

I don't have any questions at this point.

Lori, thank you.

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Mallek?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Ms.

Paulman?

Yes.

Ms.

Price?

Aye.

Yes.

All right, very good.

And let's see, the other item was 8.8.

I did.

I just had a question for, and I'm glad to see Cameron is online.

Thank you, Cameron.

When I saw that it would be limited to the 50,000 square feet, it just jogged my memory that we used to have all sorts of fairly arbitrary rules about boxes and sizes, and we've tried to move away from that so that there is flexibility when someone wants to grow.

So I would just like to get a little more background on why that is included.

If it's what they asked for, then I guess that's one thing.

But if we can provide more flexibility, I would love it.

Thank you, Supervisor Mallek.

And yes, to answer your question, the reason that the 50,000 square foot figure was in there as a condition is because that's what the applicant asked for in their application.

And I would move that we adopt 8.8 as written.

All right.

Ms.

DeFeasle-Kirtley.

Aye.

Ms.

Mallek.

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel.

Yes.

Ms.

Paulman.

Yes.

Ms.

Price.

Aye.

Yes.

All right.

Very good.

And then that will take us to our first action item today, number nine, recommended updates to the agency budget review team fiscal year 2023 application process.

There you go.

Members of the board, I'm here to talk with you about the ABRT process, which is our agency budget review process for nonprofits that apply for human service funding from the county.

With me today is Andy Bowman, who's the chief of budget.

and Kimberly Gardner, who is our grants leader for the county who works with ARPA funding and John Freeman, who is the person who is going to be managing our ABRT process again for us this year.

And so I have about eight slides to go through with some of our recommendations for the ABRT process as we move forward.

We really like to share these with the board early in the process to get your feedback and concurrence as we head into the program

and set this up for the agencies to respond to.

So thank you for the time today.

Next slide, please.

So our desired outcome today is for you to consider our recommended updates for the fiscal year 23 process.

So this is one of the first processes out as we're thinking about your fiscal year 23 budget development.

A little bit of background very quickly, and this is in the executive summary.

Many of you that have been on the board for a longer period of time remember that the ABRT program was initially created as a joint city-county process.

About fiscal year 20, we transitioned to doing our ABRT process.

It's just at the county and the city is doing their process separately.

In 20, though, we actually utilize the city's grant portal.

So our nonprofits would be putting an application in through the city to apply for county funding.

So that was in 20.

And we also utilized

the county's human service goals at that point and we have a county volunteered staff member team so we did start that in fiscal year 20.

Last year, fiscal year 22, we updated our process.

We often you know think of this as continuous improvement so we also like to look at our process every year and make improvements as we go along.

And for last year, we updated our human service goals to align with the equity value.

You may remember when Sarah came forward with that last year.

We also obtained our own county application portal.

And what this means is that agencies that want to apply for county funding, they go to the county's website and through the county portal.

So it changed that confusion.

for agencies about going through a city portal for county funding.

So we did end up with our own electronic application process last year and started that last year.

We also have a county-only scoring matrix in our own questionnaire.

So we really became very independent in fiscal year 22 with our own application process.

So this year, so we had our first year using our own application and our own process.

And we reviewed, we do surveys of our volunteers that work with us.

We looked at the grant application.

We looked again at our goals and our process and our scoring instrument.

And we have a few recommendations as we go into fiscal year 23.

And so the recommendations are along the bottom of this slide.

And I have another slide on the ARPA funding, but I'd like us to at least pause it after I go through these on this slide to see if you have any questions about three of these recommendations.

So the first thing we're going to do or we recommend is that we

Clarify our application a little bit more.

We realize there was a little confusion on some of our questions, so we're putting some clarifying language in our questionnaire that's going to be on our application portal.

And also, we want to do a little better on our website.

We want to add more information for nonprofits.

about our process on our website.

The second recommendation is if you may remember that we did a separate ABRT report.

We would provide this report to you in addition to what you received in the fiscal year 23 budget document and we found that there was a little confusion that that resulted in.

The report was basically

something that we used to do when we worked with the city we would have this separate report so we think this year based on some feedback that we've received we believe that the best thing to do for for better understanding and clarity is just to incorporate the information the summary of that information into the actual budget document so you have one document that you go to that has all your budget information all the recommended budget including this information about AVRT so you won't have to go to a separate document

The third recommendation is to, we have a requirement that we've used for many years and we did this in coordination with the city back when this ABRT was done.

jointly with them is that we asked agencies that they needed to be in business at least two years before they could apply for county funding.

And we thought about it this year, and our proposal this year is to reduce it from two-year requirement to one full year.

So basically, an agency could be in business and doing business, showing their outcomes, showing that they are progressing on things that they want to do for one year instead of two.

So that would be definitely a change.

And so I want to make sure that we have ample time for you to consider that.

And the last piece, and I will talk about this last piece in a moment, that we are recommending that we incorporate a portion of our ARPA funding.

This is the federal funding coming in through the county.

into the ABRT process for fiscal year 23.

And basically, this will allow a standard place for outside agencies to apply for consideration for some one-time ARPA funding to move forward on the county's COVID-19-related goals.

Thank you, Lori.

Supervisor Price, questions here?

Thank you, Ms.

Alshouse.

Thank you for your very clear explanation.

I totally support the first one.

One of the things I appreciate so much about the county is the continuous evaluation process that is done on everything we do.

Yes, on number one.

Number two, as I understand, we're just going to fold the ABRT information into the budget report.

Makes perfect sense.

I'm not sold yet on reducing the requirement viability from two years to one year.

open to hear what other supervisors may say.

I do understand there are other metropolitan areas that have reduced their requirement from two to one years.

Again, I'm just not yet sold on that and I think it's perfect sense to incorporate the process of the ARPA funding or that portion of it into the ABRT process because it works and it provides an efficient mechanism.

Well, I'll go down the list just as Donna did and also ask my questions as I go.

I guess one question I have that isn't in the chart, how do these changes also affect the arts applications which the county staff has evaluated separately?

Supervisor Mallek, that's a great question.

This is only about the human service nonprofits.

So this will not have any arts and culture we do separately.

So you might be looking over that process as well with a similar idea of improvement to reduce confusion.

All right, I'll look forward to more of that later.

I'm okay with discontinuing the separate report, but it would be very helpful to me if this is a consolidated chapter in the budget book rather than having it strewn all over the departments because I have a very hard time figuring out which department, which

Agency is in and if I can go to one chapter and it'll tell me Parks and Rec or DSS or whatever and have the narrative there then that will help me a lot because that's what I use the separate book for is the table of contents and where it is and looking at the narrative real quick if all the same information is in the big notebook I'm okay and I actually am not in favor of reducing the years

I will have to get some really good information to change my mind because our area is very prone to nonprofits which are invented to raise money and provide a salary for the executive director and never do anything.

And we have to be very, very careful with taxpayer money that we are proving, people have to prove to us that they are substantial and they are really providing a service for, not just a flash in the pan one year, but

but can really provide the fact that they're a stable organization.

So I will dig in my heels a bit on that one.

And I think the fourth one is a great idea.

Yes, I concur with my fellow supervisors, Vice Chair Price and Mallek regarding one, two, and four, and same thing for actually three, but I'd like to ask what is the reasoning behind

lowering it from two years to one year.

Is there something specific that you can address at this point?

Because I'm of the like mind not really to reduce it.

I'd like to see someone prove themselves that they are in it for the long haul and really for the benefit of the community.

So, Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley, I'll respond to your question.

We did a study, and again we worked with, we had two Batten students here as interns this last year, and they reached out to a lot of other jurisdictions about how they run their agency funding processes.

and we also looked at ways to make sure that our funding process is open and where we allow agencies to apply for funding.

We also wanted to take into consideration though that you just can't be a new agency and come in.

So we said, well, what if you had one full year?

And it's only to come in to apply for funding.

And that's a very important part of this.

It's not just that they receive funding.

It's just to allow the door open for applications of funds.

And we also thought with bringing in ARPA funding this year, too, there might be some agencies that may be around for a full year that are doing some things that are maybe very useful for the

more one time COVID-19 related activities.

So those were the various thoughts we had as staff as we put that in place.

We are definitely open to what the board would like us to do on this.

So we've gone with two years for a long time.

And so we stand ready to do whatever the board would like.

Thank you very much I appreciate that and I'm wondering whether or not when you said there's been agencies that have been in there for a year maybe I'm just thinking outside the box a year and a half they could at least have the application process which would then allow them after two years to garner some money but maybe they could start the process ahead of time.

I'm just throwing that out.

Thank you very much Ms.

Okay, I'll try not to repeat what other people have said, but I'm going to to some extent.

As far as combining the two documents, I'm going to agree with Ann's comments strongly.

The information needs to be in there.

It needs to be in a similar form so we can find it.

I wouldn't want reduction of that information.

I do rely on the information that's in that

The two years versus one year, when I first read that I assumed you were doing that because of the ARPA funding.

Somebody may be able to do some help there, which I totally understand.

But I think if the board as a whole does decide to go with the one year instead of the two, it would be a really good idea the following year to see a list of those that applied after only one year and whether they were given funding or not, just as a separate list.

So we get an idea.

It's a little scary to me on the one year.

And obviously, incorporating the ARP funding is a good idea.

And I had some questions about that, but I understand you're going to say more about that soon.

So I'll hold those questions, see if you answer those in your report.

So that's it.

Yes, thank you Lori for presenting this to us and I really appreciate that the continuous improvement model in making now that we have separated from the city and we're doing our own thing so to speak it's really great to go back every year

And the updates are great, like we're getting right now.

I am absolutely convinced that clarity and updating info on the website is the right thing to do.

I think that's what everybody's agreed to and I agree with I think most folks that separating this out in the I don't mind if it's rolled into the budget book in a way it would be easier and I think it probably

would help reduce some staff time and not having to produce a whole separate document.

That could be great for staff as long as we do have it in the budget book in one place because I think we all are used to really looking carefully at those descriptions and having them in one place as a carved out would be lovely.

So I think I'm saying yes to this second point.

The adjustment requirement for the agencies from two years to one I am not in favor of.

I understand the city's done that.

We don't have to copy the city necessarily.

I appreciate the fact that we have the students that were doing this work and I think they looked at

When I talked to you earlier, Lori, I didn't get the impression that they really did a broad survey across the state.

Having said that, maybe lots of communities don't even have this process.

So I'm not sure.

But at the end of the day, I fear that if we reduce from two years to one, what we're really doing is nonprofit building.

And that's not our role as supervisors with taxpayer dollars, in my opinion.

We have lots of support for our hundreds of nonprofits in the community.

The Center for Nonprofit Excellence supports them.

The Community Foundation supports them as well in a different way.

So I am pretty stuck on this two-year.

before applying.

Now having said that, I don't see any conflict with two years and the ARPA funding.

The ARPA funding is not going to go on forever and it would seem like to me that we can easily separate out the ARPA funding as being a really

I hate to say temporary, but that's a short-term process because it connects to COVID, and I doubt that it'll be going on for years and years.

And so I would think we could carve that out so that people would understand it and still maintain our two-year for our nonprofits.

And I think that's it.

I really appreciate the opportunity to weigh in.

All right.

I'm good with number one, Laurie.

Number two, I mean, I'm open to this, I suppose, but I do like the cleanliness of just being able to see it all in its own report.

So I mean, if it's still, I'd hate to say, oh yeah, just put it in the budget, but it can duplicate it because that's what you're doing now.

But there is some advantages, there are some advantages

to me when I'm reviewing that to have it there.

I like having strategic items or places in the budget that then connect to those work and have a thread.

And those should be incorporated into the budget book in that way.

But I'm certainly not close to the idea of it.

I probably just need to understand it more about when you say include summary info in the budget document, what that would look like.

And then I can compare that to what we are used to receiving for that.

The two years to one, I mean, my initial reaction was no different than many of the supervisors.

I was trying to wrap my head around, well, what would be the circumstance for something that only existed a year that would be that special exception?

There were certainly things that came up during the pandemic, nonprofit agencies that quickly formed to address things in a quick, you know, quick formation.

I suspect we have other process where

just as we did in reaction to the pandemic and trying to get things done would have avenues to support those efforts in emergency situations.

So I don't know if that's enough of an exception to get me to change our process.

But again, I think from what I'm hearing, we're all kind of left to think of the different examples versus a lot of other places, this is their process, which is fine.

But what are some of the reasons behind, oh, well, here's an example of one that may be formed.

Here's what its purpose was and why, if you waited two years, maybe you missed the opportunity.

Maybe it just forms and is only going to be in existence for a year, and it's an important thing.

But again, that probably shouldn't drive our entire process.

That should probably find its way to our financial support through a different type of request, just as we learned can happen over the last year and a half.

And then certainly agree with number four.

So those would be my reactions.

And I guess we're going back to you at this point.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah, and Supervisor Palmer asked for an additional comment as well.

So I'll go to Supervisor Palmer and then to Supervisor Malek.

I forgot to mention this.

I think it's really helpful.

I agree with, you know, with

going our own way on this and not doing it jointly with the city.

But I think it's always a good idea to have somewhere the information of what the city did fund with respect to the ones that we fund also, just so we can sort of keep track as to how that's happening.

And so I just wanted to mention that I hope that that will be in future.

I do have also Andy Bowman on with me that he may want to respond to this because he is in charge of putting that budget book together.

I do know that at the time we put it together, it's a recommendation.

So if we would think about what the city's doing, it would be trying to coordinate with them to see what they're also recommending.

because the budget document, of course, at that point is our recommendation.

He may not be here right now.

I thought he might.

OK, that's right.

So yes, why don't we definitely work with him on that to make sure that we do it in a way.

I'm hearing what everyone is saying.

You like the information that's in that larger book.

I feel like you're OK.

You don't care which way you get it, whether it's a separate book or in the book.

But you do like that information.

We actually were thinking about summarizing it, making it a lot more simple, less wordy.

But I'm also believing I'm hearing that you like that detail.

That's in there as well.

So Mr. Bowman is there, I think, where he sends a message.

Can you all see there?

Oh, he's not in the room right now.

Yeah.

Very good.

Yes, I think regarding

As an after action report rather than during the budget process, that would be nice to know because I know we've learned there were things that the other jurisdiction had supported for years and just cut off cold turkey and we were able to carry forward to keep things going.

So it is good to have that information, but I don't need it before we decide.

This big huge amount of ARPA funding I think requires us to have an even better process because it is drawing people who want to gimme, gimme, gimme out of the woodwork everywhere just like the people who are besieged when they win the lottery.

So I really want us, I'm very grateful that Nelson and Kim are watching this so carefully because we will never see this again and we've got to make sure that we're doing a really, really good job with it.

Mr. Chair, did we get an accounting of the third category, which was moving from two to one?

as well, but I wanted to make sure that that was the one area.

I wanted to make sure that we clearly got the board direction.

I did have one question, and it would be that, and Lori and her team may have thought through this already with the thoroughness that they always bring to these items, Mr. Chair.

Lori, is there any difference?

Did the team talk about the difference with a one-year organization?

And I know the board's made their decision.

Is there the financial information available when an organization's been in place for one year that would be in place after two?

And the first thing I'm thinking about is the audit, because there's a lag time of usually at least three to six months.

And I know the ABRT process places a high value on getting an understanding of the financial stability and where the money's going.

Actually, I think it was a really good point.

And we did not think about the timing of the audit.

You're exactly right that it would be three to six months after your first year, because you have to close your books before you get an audit.

Thank you, Mr. Richardson.

It's a very helpful discussion, and I appreciate the board's attention to it.

And I know Ms.

Malek has her hand up.

That last comment brought up another question for me.

Are we requiring, and I hope we do, the 990 to be filed because that and that it's required to be accurate because I think that there's a lot of goofiness that goes on in some of those things that I don't want us to be part of funding when things come to light later that they haven't been, the 990s haven't been filed accurately.

So do you get those and

Go ahead.

The audit is something that they would hire somebody to do a report, but the 990 is filed with the SEC.

And it's what they have to do as a nonprofit every year.

So that's your incorporate.

In my brain, I would see that as their incorporation papers.

Yes, we do require them to upload that information about their organization into the application portal.

OK.

That's the first step anyway.

And maybe that's the 990 form, which Ann indicates is what they actually are required to file, just so that we have it and know that they have had an audit.

Just saying.

Okay, I have moved on to the next slide.

I have some more information about the ARPA, our thoughts about incorporating the ARPA funding into this process.

So the reason we think it's a good idea, and I'm glad the board agrees with this, is it provides a systematic way for our community partner agencies to submit applications for consideration.

And as Ms.

McKeel brought up, ARPA is one time.

It is over a two year period.

It wasn't like CARES that we have to do it very quickly or at least we didn't think that we thought that's how CARES would go until they changed the rules on us.

But ARPA is one time.

ARPA is very special funding.

It has very special considerations.

So we want to make sure it's well known to the non-profits.

The ARPA funds are temporary in nature.

It says they write in the information about the ARPA funding.

So in my mind, in our mind, as staff on this, it's one-time funding.

The proposals that we receive for ARPA funding must meet the federal eligibility criteria.

And Ms.

Garner is going to be all over that.

One of her roles is really studying eligibility.

So we would have to meet, of course, the federal eligibility requirements, which are to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic or the negative economic impacts of COVID-19.

The other thing about the ARPA funding is we want to make sure it does support the county's economic vitality and human service goals themselves.

So in addition to be eligible for the federal level, we want to make sure they're pushing forward the concepts and the ideas that the county staff believes the best thing to be doing.

The ARPA applications are our thoughts, and I do have the next slide a little bit on how it'll work through the portal, but our thoughts are we will move the applications for ARPA funding to a staff team.

So as you know, we've involved volunteers very much in this process, but we think because of the eligibility criteria and other items around that, it will be a staff team that will look at those applications.

County staff then, as you know,

They just make recommendations to go into the fiscal year 23 recommended budget.

So what we're trying to do is really align the ARPA funding for fiscal year 23 so that, as we've mentioned before, ARPA funding will be considered as part of your fiscal year 23 budget.

So it'll just work lockstep time-wise into that timeline of fiscal year 23.

So that's the additional information I have about ARPA.

The next slide, I have a couple more slides.

And then if you have any other questions, let me know.

This is kind of how the portal is going to work.

Basically, an agency would enter all their basic information.

And Ms.

Mallek, that includes, are you eligible?

Are you a nonprofit?

Are you currently a legitimate nonprofit?

All those pieces of documentation goes in under the agency name.

and then they have an option and they can apply for the accounting ABRT funding and or they could apply for ARPA funding so we're not limiting an agency to just say oh you have to go one or the other but you can go you can go one direction or the other or both and then you'd have to do a separate application however and on the green line there the ABRT funding would have to address the county's ABRT human service goals which are very detailed

And then if you go the direction with the ARPA funding, you have to meet the ARPA funding federal guidelines and the ARPA goals.

And then again, it comes together at the end as a staff recommendation.

And my last slide, I believe this is the last one just before the end.

This is just a time frame of how it works.

We don't have the exact dates in this yet.

Then in August, the month we're in now, we're recruiting volunteers to serve on our ABRT process.

Many of them are the same volunteers that were with us last year, which is great, but there may be some new faces.

In September, we hold an application orientation.

And then we'll open up the application portal on our website.

And then in October, that will be a due date in October.

We're still working out the exact date of when the agencies must submit their applications online.

November is when the volunteers and staff teams do their work.

And then December, they complete their scoring, and they provide that scoring to the budget team in the Department of Finance and Budget.

So that's how the time frame works.

And this is my last slide other than just the final slide on

on considering our recommendations.

All right.

Thank you, Lori.

I'll go through the round real quick.

We are past time.

Supervisor Price, you're first.

Thank you.

Ms.

Alshaus, again, thank you.

And I am so pleased with the ABRT process.

And I think everything you've talked about today confirms that.

That is a process that provides for objectivity in decision making.

rather than personality and subjectivity.

And that's the way we should handle these things.

Thank you.

I have no further comments.

I really appreciate the work that you and everyone in the county does to do such work.

Yes.

Did the last slide with the time frame, does that apply to both the ARPA and the ABRT?

So that can be shared with our agencies who are wondering when they should get organized.

That's great.

I do have one.

Could you, since we're talking about the ARP money here, could you give us a quick rundown on where we are with respect to taking care of evictions, where the process leads, because I know you've got the specialist with respect to that.

Ms.

Gardner is available to answer that question.

Thank you, supervisors.

I appreciate it.

We are actually in the process of finishing up a contract with the United Way to fund the emergency assistance program similar to the one that we did with CARES.

That should be done this week.

And then we plan on sending out the wire to the United Way by Friday or Monday, hopefully.

And that's $800,000 going to that program.

All right.

So Kim, is that for rental assistance or for attorneys to help people not get evicted?

I could have asked that question better.

I apologize.

I was being too quick.

Yes.

Correct.

Great.

So there's no help available for the people who have already received their paperwork and are about to be thrown out once things because the court, they're getting 10 minutes in court with no attorney and no help.

So I was going to raise that at the end of the day.

We'll talk about it later.

All right.

No, I'm fine, I think, on what we agreed to, to get back to what our original topic was.

The only thing I wanted to say was to thank, Laura, you talk about the volunteers.

And we all are just so appreciative for the community members that are volunteering their time.

This takes an extraordinary amount of time.

And we are really appreciative to them, as well as our staff.

And I have been very impressed over the years with how much one-on-one coaching and help the team gives the members from the nonprofits that are trying to figure out what they did wrong last year or how they can improve their application.

All right, very good.

Lori, thank you.

I do.

Very good.

You guys have a good afternoon.

Just a quick housekeeping item.

When the screen has a presentation up, I can't see people raising hands because I don't have all of you in front of me.

If you want to get an additional comment in, if you could please alert me in the chat, it'll just help make sure I don't miss anybody or people talking over one another.

This is the homestay special exception.

And Rebecca.

Rebecca and Bart, I believe.

I see Bart.

I see Rebecca's name.

I will be leading off.

Oh, there you go.

So hello supervisors, thank you for having us.

It's been an eventful meeting so far.

Let me see if I can get my screen shared here and we will get started.

How are we doing?

Okay.

We'll start again.

We can see it now.

Okay.

There we go.

Sorry about that.

So this is a deferred application.

It is special exception 2021 number 18.

And this is the homestay special exception up near Mickey Tavern.

I'm going to run through these first few slides rather quickly.

I don't want to redo our last presentation from last meeting regarding this matter and we'll get to the questions as quick as possible.

So as board members may recall, there were questions regarding the definition of a home stay mainly and also staff was asked to verify any crash data with VDOT regarding any accidents or involving any sight distance with Jefferson Lake Drive.

This is a slide just a reminder of the area and the amount of kind of commercial character that exists along Thomas Jefferson Parkway.

You can see the green star that is the location of the homestay.

This is a picture of the 19, I believe it's 42 or 48 building that was constructed the home there.

This is a shot of that up near Thomas Jefferson Parkway.

and the request is for these three items, an increase in the number of guest rooms, reduce the required minimum yards, and waive the owner occupancy to allow a resident manager.

Number two, I think with the conditions and the discussion last time, that issue has been resolved.

However, until we get past one or three, number two is not really relevant

until we get through the other ones.

So the guest room or floor plan and I do have a sketch of that on the next slide.

We did get a copy of that and I'll run through that quickly but one of the things that came up was what is a homestay and whether or not specifically they would be required to have dining or meeting space.

So when we think traditionally about, say, a conference center or hotel that has dining or meeting space, it's for use for more than just the hotel guests.

With homestay, it's accessory to the single-family house, but only the guests are allowed to use the amenities or meeting rooms.

So when we look at homestays and we talk about dining or meeting rooms, those are areas that mainly take place within the room itself that's for rent.

The traditional B&B that has the breakfast gathering place is not what we're seeing in most of these anymore.

So the traditional, there's one down by Piedmont Community College, those types of B&Bs that have the everybody meets at the table for dinner, those aren't really what we're seeing anymore.

Plus, the way our regulation was adopted is I can't have a

A dinner party or a pool party or a conference at a homestay, those amenities or those things that take place there on that property are only for the homestay guests.

So I hope that helps to clarify the dining and or meeting space confusion.

This is the guest room or floor plan.

The blue outline only represents

the different spaces.

It doesn't mean anything kind of more than that.

The diagram on your left is the top floor and the diagram on your right is the basement.

I will note that the longer blue area on the basement side, which does have an outside entrance, is where the manager's quarters are.

So it takes up at least half of the basement area.

and again the other four rooms are upstairs.

Also we were asked to verify with VDOT some crash data.

We did receive information back from Adam Moore, Assistant Resident Engineer.

And between June of 2016 and June of 2021, there were two documented crashes.

One was a single car running off the road.

The second was coming out of the cemetery entrance.

So those were the only vehicle crashes identified by VDOT in that area.

Well, within 150 feet of Jefferson Lake Drive.

Once you get beyond that, you start to go beyond the turns for those of you that are familiar with the road.

We also wanted to verify the number of trips per day.

Did VDOT see home stays?

increasing any traffic from a single family residence.

And their comment back to us was it's not expected to generate more traffic than a normal residential use.

A normal residential use is generally about 10 trips per day.

This is the special exception criteria.

We cover that almost every time, so unless someone would like me to land on this slide for discussion, I'm going to move on.

Again, these were the three asks in this special exception.

One was the rooms, and with

Five being the max and based on the non-residential uses in proximity to this, the adjacent parcels.

Staff did not find it a detriment to the rooms, a detriment to the adjoining properties in regards to the rooms.

Also with the setbacks, I will go to the sketch here in a minute that shows the distances, but there's no single family dwellings within

125 feet of the property line, let alone the structure itself.

So staff also did not find any impacts to the adjacent properties, although we do have some requirements in our conditions for screening that would take into account anything that may occur.

The last is the owner occupancy, and this is for the resident manager.

and one of the things we have in this particular case is that the owner must reside and be present on the subject parcel.

This parcel is owned by an artificial entity and it cannot be, an artificial entity can't occupy the building.

So one of the reasons for this particular ask is for the resident manager because the owner actually doesn't reside there but also it is owned by an artificial entity.

Due to the commercial nature, again, within the area, we did not find that the artificial entity in this particular case would cause a change to the surrounding character of the neighborhood.

And just as a reminder, when we analyze these special exceptions, same as a special permit, it's about this particular use that's proposed on this particular parcel and the character that goes along with

this particular area and we do not.

Although we analyze and look for the same concerns, different parcels have different, they're impacted different ways depending on the area and different things.

So that's where we are.

That's staff's quick summary of what we have for the analysis.

This is the some of the conditions in the Resolution F if we get that far as far as limiting vehicles was one of the questions to make sure we didn't have recreational vehicles or buses there so we did look at the county code and

mirror what we have in the residential neighborhoods about parking of vehicles.

So that's condition number four.

We also did address the screening.

Before we go through this too much farther, I would like to try and get through maybe some of your other concerns to see if we need to spend any amount of time on this.

And I will end with just having the exhibit up that shows parking and the location of the house.

All right, thank you, Mark.

And we'll go through questions at this point or comments.

Supervisor Malek?

Thank you Chair Galloway, thank you Mr. Svoboda.

The only question I have is with regard to the conditions.

Because this is an artificial entity, would it be appropriate to add a fifth condition regarding a resident manager or is that not required?

The resident manager, and Greg may want to weigh in also, or Mr. Campner, County Attorney, may want to weigh in also.

The resident manager would be required by ordinance.

All right.

That being the case, I have no questions.

I will have comments after all the supervisors have had an opportunity to ask their questions.

Thank you again, Mr. Sepulveda, and thank you, Chair Galloway.

Thank you.

So we should not assume then we're talking about 10 trips a day as you would with a normal residential property.

I just wanted to clarify that.

And I appreciate that they may have gotten an entrance permit for the driveway in 1948.

And I'm guessing that since ours was put in 1982, the rules were very strict.

I expect they're a lot stricter now.

But I will leave that alone because VDOT has signed off on it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Spoda.

I'm still having concerns.

I see that there are four.

Could you go back to the other?

Yes.

So there are one, two, three, four above and then one below, one below being for the resident manager.

Is that correct?

Yes, there is a guest room below also.

I don't know if you can see my cursor, but this area here is guest room number five.

The blue area is the resident manager area.

Yes, the other house located on the property is separate.

Okay, I guess I'm still having a problem with the fact that they each have separate entrances and exits, so it's not really somebody's

I believe it's incorporated but yeah for discussion purposes it's what we call an artificial entity or a business entity it's not owned by

Okay, so it's not that the owner, let's say the owner of this property, okay, so let's say, for example, if I own this property, but I had an LLC for insurance reasons, but I own this and I live there and I rented it out, that's one thing.

But what I hear you saying is that it's a separate company

not affiliated with this or an artificial entity that is now renting out these rooms with a resident manager because we're requiring a resident manager.

I'm not following you.

I'm sorry.

Right.

I mean, it's one thing if someone

lives there, if someone lived there, owned it, but yet had it under an LLC for insurance purposes and such, as opposed to this is an artificial business entity that owns this.

So it's not someone who is renting out their house to make a little, some extra money or property they own.

It's an artificial entity.

It's a separate business that owns this.

Yeah, so the artificial entity in this case is a sole proprietor.

So essentially, it's as you described, say the owner lived there and did the artificial entity to protect the property.

However, in this case, it's still that same particular setup as an individual, but they don't live on the property.

One of the things we have that we struggle to or can't differentiate from is

is the LLCs meaning they either are what they are LLCs or they're not for us to delve into say corporate papers and ownership and when's that transfer down the road and you know to try and condition that would be difficult at best tracking it would be even more difficult to see how things would change hands in that particular case so the way the

OK.

I know our home stays are, I don't know, I'm still having some concerns.

It still seems to me, since each room can be rented out separately, separate entrance and everything, it still seems to be more of a motel-like setting.

But with that, I'll let other supervisors ask questions.

So Bart, my confusion lies in your first slide.

I know that our county code says that two guest rooms are allowed.

And you had three guest rooms, five instead of three instead of five instead of two.

Okay, and do all these guest rooms, these five guest rooms, do the majority of them have separate entrances?

I wasn't really totally clear on that.

Go back to the sketch, but in this particular proposal, all the rooms have an outside access.

There's an ability to connect within the building with the hallway if you look here.

That's kind of where the old hallway was.

Down here, also there's a long hallway that goes in, but essentially they all have their own exterior entrance.

And so for form, they're all outside.

For function, the ordinance doesn't differentiate the inside access or outside access, just access.

Okay, so I'm kind of going back to our discussion from when we first put this ordinance in place and remembering

Ms.

McCauley talking about the reason for the ordinance.

And this was basically to allow a homeowner to make some extra money on the side.

It was an accessory use to go through this process.

And we went ahead, and this is my memory, and I was somebody who certainly supported

The resident manager on larger properties because we have people who, you know, maybe their family owned 100 acres or 50 acres in the rural areas and they had a family home and they, the parents died, they lived out of state, they wanted to try to keep the property in the family and this was going to allow them to make some extra money to pay for the upkeep of the house.

And those were the kinds of discussions that we had on the nature of the home state process.

Do you have any comments about that, trying to marry this particular application with that

In our rural areas, it was mixed.

Public outreach in the rural areas was about the family farm, but also within a commercial type area, downtown Crozet as an example, there was discussion about tourism and supporting that as one of our comp plan goals.

So we kind of have our foot on both sides of the fence when it comes to this regulation.

Thank you very much.

Greg has something.

Well, the one thing I would add is that the special exception that allows resident managers was simply to build in some flexibility into the regulations so that the board could evaluate these types of situations on a case-by-case basis.

I have one question and just a quick comment to piggyback.

I think we're struggling with the word homestay when this really seems to be more of a, as Bea said, a small motel or even a motel.

My question, Bart, is I see on staff recommendation, which has been added, number four.

I have to admit ignorance.

Registered gross weight of 16,000 pounds or more.

So what, in practical terms, are we limiting here?

I'm just not very good at, is this like one of our

bands that we see taking people around to vineyards.

What does this actually mean?

Help me with that.

yeah depending on the size maybe so the term van for me I would say no it's not the van but it is the tour bus so that language comes out of our new carefully crafted parking regulation when we talk about the kind of the urban areas and keeping the larger vehicles to a minimum if not at all in those areas so one of the discussions we had about we talked about last time was

if tour buses were coming in and out, larger vehicles, things like that.

Right.

And I kind of get that.

So that helps me to compare a little bit.

Yeah.

OK.

Thank you.

That was my question.

All right.

I was not in attendance at the meeting when this was first here, so I got a couple of just quick questions from owners.

Tell me what exists now or if this is denied.

This is just we have a long-term tenant in there, and they can do homestays for a couple of rooms.

Is it just a long-term tenant?

The current state of the property is there are two houses.

One house is currently under renovation and I may get this wrong but what we're referring to or who would be the resident manager was in the house being renovated and they are now in the other house.

They're a long term tenant and have been on the property for a number of years.

I believe it's actually more than even 10 years on the property.

They are in the long-term rental of the second house.

We have the house in the photographs where the homestay is proposed.

It has a building permit and it's under renovation.

They're upgrading electrical.

There's a new roof.

They're taking care of water that's infiltrating the basement, different things like that.

It was built in 1942, so there's some upgrades that the owner wants to do.

Other ones may be out of necessity for the structure, but basically the outside will be staying the same and trying to maintain that

kind of historic character that it has.

I believe it was, I don't remember the architect.

He's got the system or name to surveyor we have here locally.

So there's a long-term tenant in there now.

Yes.

That long-term tenant would be the resident manager.

If it went forward, they'd be the resident manager and stay a long-term tenant.

No, there hasn't been a homestay there before.

If the option to do the two rooms, if the special exception was denied, because as stated Mr. Chairman, there is a buy right level to the homestay.

This is the special exception law.

So denying the special exception removes the extra bedrooms and some of the other requests.

And then just track my understanding of our own ordinance here.

When we allow the resident manager occupancy instead of the owner occupancy,

All right, very good.

Those are my questions there.

Supervisor Price, you had some comments?

Thank you again Mr. Svoboda and thank you Chair Galloway.

This property does reside or is located within the Scottsville Magisterial District which I represent.

I had some concerns when this came up before.

satisfied that those concerns have been resolved.

I appreciate our County Attorney Mr. Campner pointing out that the ordinance was designed to provide some flexibility so that in a case-by-case analysis we can make decisions rather than one size fits all.

I think it's important to note that this property

is essentially surrounded by non-residential.

Across the street on 53 is Mickey Tavern.

If you're facing from 53 looking at the property, left and behind it is the cemetery, to the right and behind it is property owned by the Monticello Foundation.

That might not be the technical owner, but basically that's who owns it.

It is the only residential property within any

I think part of it, back to real estate location, location, location is what makes this particular application different than applications we might receive from a residence in a residential neighborhood.

There will be virtually no impact, I would say no impact on any of the surrounding properties by this utilization.

I think it's also important to point out that while there have been major improvements, there has been no change to the footprint

of the building itself.

And that is substantially different than another application that we had at a previous time.

So the structural integrity of the building and its exterior has been maintained.

It is important to note and while traffic

regulations may have changed in 1942 when this road was approved it was approved for six different residences and so the fact that now there will be a permanent long-term tenant in the separate building not part of this application the resident manager as well as the potential up to five rooms being rented that is not a substantial difference

It was approved by VDOT and having recently, myself, gone through a family subdivision with an instance of residences being built along the private access easement, private road where I live, I am familiar with what VDOT goes through to ensure that there are satisfactory minimum site distances.

I guess we could discuss whether it looks more like a mini hotel or a homestay, but according to Mr. Svoboda and my understanding from Mr. Campner, our county attorney, it does meet the ordinance definition of a homestay and

I believe, and so I'm going to, when we're finished with the discussion, I will move that the board adopt the proposal attachment F, I believe it is, with the exceptions contained therein.

I would ask, however, I think it would be helpful, not a requirement for me, but I think it would be helpful if we could have signs placed along 53, both going uphill and downhill, something to the effect of a blind or hidden driveway or something to ensure that vehicles are observing the posted speed limit, because it is somewhat of a hairy egress point.

I would also point out, I did go back to the property, I did speak with the applicant, and though the applicant had desired and had engineering support to modify that entrance, neither the cemetery nor the Monticello Foundation were, at least reportedly to me, were willing to grant

the approval for him to be able to make those adjustments.

So I think if there's something we can do to try and improve the site safety, that would be something I would recommend, but it is not a requirement.

And again, I will be prepared to make a motion to approve this.

Thank you, Jack Gallaway.

And again, thank you, Mr. Svoboda, for your presentation.

Yes, ma'am.

Just coming back to the LLC question, I'm really glad we're going to be discussing this at a future date, because rural area homeowners who live in their house are denied even the ability to apply for a homestay because of the LLC ownership they might have on their farm.

Yes, I agree with Supervisor Mallek.

I think that to discuss the LLC provision will be very useful in the future.

I did have one question for Mr. Savoda that you said that the resident manager is currently living in

Okay, okay.

I still think that this is more of a commercial project, but I do appreciate Supervisor Vice Chair Price's understanding that it is surrounded by commercial areas and there's no residential impact.

So my questions are answered.

All right, Supervisor Palmer.

No, thank you.

Very good.

No, I don't have any comments.

I think my answer, my questions were answered.

I appreciate the relook by VDOT.

and the additional recommendation.

And I really do agree with Donna.

It would be great if perhaps we would be willing to put up a sign.

We see those signs other places.

That would be helpful, I would think.

But that's it.

Very good.

Thank you, Supervisor Price.

Thank you Chair Galloway.

At this time I would move that the board adopt the attached resolution F subject to the conditions contained therein for this application SC-2021-18.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

All right, any further discussion?

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Mallek?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Ms.

Palmer?

No.

Ms.

Price?

Aye.

Yes.

All right, very good.

The motion carries.

Bart, thank you.

Thank you.

Have a good afternoon, sir.

All right, the board, that will take us to our, I got my pages in order, to our recess.

We're a few minutes behind, so if we can get caught up, we'll come back from our recess at 3 p.m.

And on to our next item, number 11, CPA 2021-01, the Crozet Master Plan.

And there is Rachel connecting now in company.

Good afternoon, are we started?

I couldn't agree more.

Okay, hopefully you're all able to see my screen.

I'll do introductions.

I'm Rachel Falkenstein.

I'm planning manager in community development, and I am joined by my colleagues Tori Kanalopoulos and Michaela Acardi, and we will be presenting the full draft of the Crozet master plan for your review and feedback.

So the purpose of this meeting today is to receive the board's feedback on the full draft of the master plan, and we'd like to receive the board's direction on whether the plan is ready

to proceed to public hearing for adoption.

And so we have two questions for your discussion this afternoon.

We have the first question just asking for any general feedback or suggested provisions and a focus on implementation projects based on some planning commission feedback we've received.

And we'll share that information for you to deliberate and discuss.

And then secondly, looking for consensus from the board on whether the Crozet master plan is ready to proceed to public hearing.

So our agenda for today's work session is a two-part presentation.

We'll give an overview of the draft master plan.

We'll share some information about process, the content, and then some recommendations from the commission.

And then the second part will focus on the implementation projects.

And we'll share the categorization of the projects and some of the planning commission's recommendations about these.

And then at the end of that, we will pause for discussion and feedback.

And we have about 15 minutes of presentation before the discussion period.

So I'm going to kick us off with a little bit of overview of the planning process to develop the draft master plan.

So we've organized our planning process into four phases.

Phase one began in September of 2019 with a series of in-person public workshops and discussion on those were focused on the vision for Crozet, community hopes and concerns.

And at the completion of that phase we drafted some updated guiding principles for the master plan document.

Phase two began our discussions of focus areas where we received input on goals and draft strategies to address the identified guiding principles.

And phase two is also where we shifted from in-person gatherings to virtual meetings due to COVID-19.

At this point, we began hosting our master plan meetings during the virtual monthly CAC meetings.

We also relied heavily on online engagement through publicinput.com.

The outcome of phase two was conceptual recommendations and implementation projects based on the input we heard.

Phase three, we began to refine the goals from phase two and develop draft maps and plans for each chapter, such as a future trails map, the future land use plan, and future streets network.

We also drafted some written recommendations to support the cutting principles and goals that we developed in the previous phases.

And lastly, phase four is currently where we are in the planning process, and this phase has involved developing draft chapters based on previous input.

We also had a focus on implementation projects and identifying plan priorities.

And the rollout of vaccines during this phase allowed us to do a little bit of in-person engagement with some pop-ups using the county's mobile engagement van.

The final step of phase four would be public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for final plan adoption.

So we've received some feedback that our communication about how

Community input to the master plan has been used, has not been clear, and has led to some misunderstanding and frustration, especially for members of the public who have participated in the planning process but don't feel their opinions are fully represented in the draft.

So in an effort to respond to that feedback, we're trying to provide more clarity around the decision making and plan drafting process.

The community feedback is an important element of the county's comprehensive plan process and we've made every effort to provide opportunities for interested members of the community to share their vision for the community and also to weigh in on draft content as we develop it and share it out with the public.

So for the Crozet Master Plan update, this also included developing new ways of engaging with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The best way I can describe the community input and how it is used is through a feedback loop.

Our process is iterative rather than linear and involves working with community members, stakeholders, community partners, and elected and appointed officials.

Revisions to plan and draft content are made continually as we make our way through the engagement with various plan stakeholders.

And that often means that we have several drafts of the content and different iterations of maps and recommendations are developed before the plan is final.

So we developed this graphic shown on the slide on the right-hand side of the screen at the beginning of our planning process to try and communicate this concept of a feedback loop.

So we start with the draft concept and then we bring it out to the community, listen to their input, try and aggregate the feedback as best we can, and then revise the recommendations.

And the loop continues as we move through the content and engage with the various stakeholders, including the Planning Commission Board.

Ultimately, the final decision-making and plan adoption lies in the hands of the Board of Supervisors with recommendations from staff and the Planning Commission.

So staff has done our best to represent the input we've heard throughout the process, including from the community, from the CAC, the commission, and the board.

And the resulting plan has some elements representing feedback from each of these groups.

So the left-hand side of the screen is a list of planning commission and board meetings where we've reviewed and discussed master plan content and the draft chapters as we've developed them.

And that's in addition to the list of public engagement activities we posted through the two-year planning process.

If you'd like to see a complete list of engagement opportunities, that's found in attachment A1 of the materials.

And then we've tried to summarize the feedback in the appendix of the draft master plan.

And you can see that in the pages of the appendix, pages 9 through 17.

Thank you, Rachel.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Tori Kennelopulos.

I will be covering an overview of the content of the draft master plan document.

So each of these five chapters begins with an overview and the background for that topic, including the main challenges and opportunities that will be addressed.

Then each chapter includes more detailed narrative, recommendations, maps, and plans to support the recommended projects and policies.

And each chapter concludes with the guiding principle for that topic and the goals and supporting recommendations.

So now we will go through each of those chapters in a little bit more detail.

Next slide, please.

The introduction chapter starts with a brief summary about community engagement and drafting this plan.

And as Rachel mentioned, there's more detailed information found in the appendix of this plan and also as attachment A1.

The intro chapter includes guiding principles for each of the subsequent chapters.

It includes historic context with history of people, development, industries, and schools.

There's also data and demographics, including more data on recent growth.

And then the key challenges and opportunities, which highlights some of the main themes that will be included in the subsequent chapters.

Next slide, please.

The transportation chapter includes the future bike and pedestrian network, which shows future connections for neighborhoods, centers, and districts.

A future street network, which includes planned future connections, such as Eastern Avenue, and then potential smaller connections where local streets that almost connect may be able to intersect in the future.

The street typologies provide recommendations for the design of streets to accommodate the capacity of pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers.

And then there are recommended intersection improvements focused on downtown and Route 250 based on the transportation analysis completed by the consulting firm EPR.

And there are opportunities for future transit improvements and recommendations from the downtown parking study that was completed by the consulting firm Kinley-Horn.

Next slide, please.

The land use chapter includes the future land use plan, which covers centers and districts and also land use categories.

These land use categories include the recommended uses, densities, building form and massing, and prioritize design principles for each category.

And then in the appendix, there is more detailed guidance for the middle density residential category.

There's also guidance on centers and districts with more detail for each of those and there's especially a focus on the downtown center since it is the only town center and is an area of significant importance for community members.

There's information on housing choice in Crozet with options for more creative designs that are also compatible with existing scale and are smaller and tend to be more affordable unit types.

And then there's a section on other areas of Crozet.

So these are areas that are not in centers and districts, but are areas of importance based on community feedback, including rural edges.

Next slide, please.

So we did want to highlight a more recent update to the future land use plan.

So this is an update to the block that is bounded by Crozet Avenue, Dunn-Vegan Lane, Taber Street, and High Street.

And this is shown on the screen in orange for middle density residential.

This area was updated from the 2010 designation of neighborhood density residential to middle density.

This update was made based on board feedback from the April land use work session to provide more housing choice and affordability.

and also based on previous CAC and community feedback to provide more density around downtown and other walkable areas.

And the other areas section of the land use chapter includes supporting recommendations for this area, such as preservation of historic homes and the mature tree canopy.

And just wanted to note that these recommendations would only apply if a rezoning request was made for any of these properties and they would not apply for any by right development done under the existing R2 zoning.

There are also some supporting transportation recommendations in the transportation chapter, especially for improving walkability in this area.

And this request was supported by some CAC members that shared comments on this topic during their May meeting.

Staff has also heard from two of the property owners in this block who do not support the change.

Next slide please.

The conservation chapter includes the Parks and Green Systems Plan, which shows connections between recreational areas, schools, neighborhoods, and centers, and then also areas with sensitive environmental features to preserve.

It includes the major parks and trails and supporting recommendations.

There are also recommendations for other county-owned properties that are not major parks or schools, such as the stormwater wetlands on Crozet Avenue.

The section on biodiversity, natural resources, and green systems includes water quality, stormwater management, steep slopes, and the tree canopy.

And then the cultural and scenic resources section includes opportunities for connections to the nearby rural area and national park and other regional natural areas.

Next slide, please.

And then finally, the implementation chapter starts with an overview of the types of projects, how they're categorized and prioritized, and options for funding.

And the next section of this presentation will also cover more of this chapter with more detail.

So next slide, please.

And staff has made updates to the content of these chapters since the June planning commission work session based on the commission's feedback.

So staff wanted to highlight some of the major feedback that we received from the commission.

Staff heard that the plan is consistent with the county's comprehensive plan and there's overall support for the draft content and document design.

There were also some minor edits suggested.

These are also included in the board's attachments in more detail with attachments C, D, and E. So some of those changes that staff made include clarifying language about the engagement process as included in the introduction and appendix sections.

Clarifying expectations for Crozet as a satellite community within the context of the county and its development areas, more data and context about recent growth in Crozet, and more information about funding sources, cost estimates, and specific projects in the implementation chapter.

Thank you, Gloria.

My name is Michaela Carty, and we're going to transition now to provide an overview about the implementation chapter and how projects are prioritized within it.

Implementation chapter includes all of the recommended projects from each of the previous chapters, transportation, land use, and conservation, and consolidates them into one chapter.

More detail is provided on each project, including a cost estimate that is symbolized with dollar signs that reflect cost range.

A realization timeline is also provided for each project.

And realization timeline refers to the amount of time that it will take for a project to be completed from start to finish when everything is in place for the project, including funding sources and land acquisition, if applicable.

Additionally, several graphic tools are used in this chapter to categorize projects and make them easy to understand and group.

Three different types of projects are included in this chapter.

Planning projects are noted with a triangle, policy with a hexagon, and capital with a circle.

And the colors from the chapters are also used to indicate where each project comes from in the broader Master Plan document.

And finally, these projects are prioritized into catalyst, future, and ongoing categories.

These reflect priorities from community engagement efforts that staff conducted

Staff held community pop-ups, a virtual information session about the recommended projects, provided a public input.com questionnaire for community members, and presented at a CROWS ACAC meeting to solicit input on how to prioritize these projects.

Detailed information about the community engagement efforts can be found in attachment A1 of the staff report, as well as on page 17 of the appendix in the draft master plan.

And I will talk about how projects are prioritized in more detail on the following slides.

And you can refer to the information about how the chapter is organized on page six of the implementation chapter in case it's helpful to look back at those symbols and what the dollar signs mean, those things.

Catalyst projects are projects that reflect the community's priorities within the master plan and are expected to be completed or have substantial progress completed within the next 10 years.

Some of these projects are phased, and half of the projects that are categorized as catalyst projects are transportation related, reflecting community members' ongoing concerns related to vehicular, bike, and pedestrian connectivity.

The projects are ordered to reflect community priorities, though not necessarily the order in which they are to be completed.

This is due to varying project timelines and different upfront needs for projects to move forward.

Next slide, please.

The catalyst projects are listed on page 7 of the implementation chapter with a map showing their locations on pages 8 and 9.

Examples of these projects include construction of Eastern Avenue, priority sidewalk connections, downtown high street improvements, and policy projects like updates to the downtown Croats Bay zoning district.

If you have questions on specific projects, please feel free to ask during the discussion portion of the work session and we can answer those questions.

Next slide, please.

The future projects are anticipated to be completed within 10 to 20 years.

This longer timeline is anticipated because of their cost, upfront names, and or they were not identified by community members as a high priority.

These projects may happen faster if funding and resource opportunities arise, such as grants, redevelopment projects, and or community partnerships.

Some of these projects are subsequent phases of catalyst projects.

Next slide, please.

The current list of future projects is on pages 18 and 19 of the implementation chapter with maps showing their locations on pages 20 and 21.

Examples of future projects include downtown wayfinding signage, upgrading Jarman's Gap Road, Railroad Avenue, and Mint Springs Road to rural shared roads and Route 250 West to sign guidelines.

Next slide, please.

Ongoing projects is the final group of projects and this includes all of the remaining recommendations from the chapters that did not have a specific policy or capital project associated with them.

These are recommendations that incorporate perspectives or data as part of ongoing reviews such as rezonings or special use permits or involve collaborations with partner agencies.

An example of an ongoing project is recommendation 5D from the transportation chapter.

to work with VDOT to coordinate shoulder widening pavement markings and signage on identified rural shared roads during routine paving and maintenance work.

The list of these projects is on page 36 of the implementation chapter.

Next slide, please.

I will circle back on earlier information that Tori introduced about the Planning Commission feedback on this chapter.

The Planning Commission recommended that the policy projects listed in the catalyst projects group, so that those projects anticipated

in the first 10 years, they recommended that they be moved to future projects since they are less of a community priority than the bicycle and pedestrian projects they've previously heard of.

Additionally, the commission recommended moving the naturally occurring affordable housing survey and downtown neighborhoods architectural and cultural resources study to the list of catalyst projects due to anticipated development pressure within the first 10 years of this plan's implementation.

And since there's a lot of different projects listed here on the next slide, these are the projects that the planning commission recommended moving to the catalyst for higher priority projects, the sidewalk connections, the naturally affordable housing survey and recommendations, and the downtown neighborhoods architectural and cultural resources.

The following slide shows the five

projects that are currently in the catalyst projects moving them to future projects and to be completed in 10 to 20 years.

This was the planning commission's recommendation.

And these are summarized in attachment B of the staff report for your reference.

Next slide, please.

And before we conclude, I'll note that some of the catalyst projects are listed

because they already have funding in place and or are part of county-wide initiatives that are expected to be completed within the timeframe of zero to 10 years, but they don't necessarily reflect the community members' top priorities.

So that's what's reflected in the existing draft.

And during this work session, staff is seeking board direction on implementation projects that should be included in this zero to 10 year category of catalyst projects.

Thank you, Michaela.

So I just want to wrap us up by noting the next steps in this project.

As you all know, the county's master plans are part of the county's comprehensive plan.

And so to revise the comprehensive plan requires public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.

So we are tentatively planning to move forward with public hearings for plan adoption in September with the Planning Commission and October with the board, pending the board's direction this evening.

We are also continuing to vet the final draft plan that we shared with you all with some of our partner agencies such as VDOT and RWSA to ensure consistency with their plans and regulations.

And so on that note, I will bring up the two questions for discussion to remind you what direction we're looking for this evening.

So question one, do you have any general revisions to the draft master plan?

And then secondly, related to the content that Michaela presented about the planning commission's recommended changes to the implementation projects, do you recommend that we make revisions there?

And then secondly, is the master plan ready to proceed to public hearing?

And that concludes our presentation.

Thank you, Rachael.

Supervisor Price, you get to begin.

Thank you, Chair Galloway, and thank you all for your presentation.

Substantial work has gone into this.

On the part of everybody, community members, staff, planning commission, the board previously,

And I first want to acknowledge that and also the complexities and difficulties of trying to achieve a wide-ranging number of objectives.

Recognizing, again, that location, location, location that applies to real estate, that things that might work in one area of the county may not work in another area.

So, for example, Crozet is a very special place and it has some transportation advantages

that the village of Rivanna, which is a very special place, does not have some of those transportation support mechanisms.

So we can't have a one-size-fits-all.

The biggest, and I also want to acknowledge and recognize the difference between having a master plan for an area as opposed to a plan for a particular proposal development.

We are not

We're developing a master crozet that we're trying to design as a plan that will then allow development within the crozet to achieve the goals that we're setting up.

The one thing that I really struggle with goes back to the middle density housing.

And again, I want to differentiate what we're dealing with here today versus, for example, a planned development in the Norfolk, Virginia area called East Beach, where it was a planned development and they were able to intermix throughout the development different types of housing so that you don't have pockets of

I recognize that's more difficult here where we have different parcels of property that can be developed by different applicants over the years.

but it does raise in my mind one concern that it appears that the middle density housing is largely set aside into small pockets within Crozet rather than being more blended into the overall development and I think that's probably about the most significant question that I have and I don't know that there's a good answer for it but I do want to thank county staff as well as our community members

Thank you for that lead in.

I have lots and lots of information that some has already been shared with staff, but I'm not going to go through all that now unless people have questions later.

But thank you, Supervisor Price, for that lead in on the most important issue that I do want to put before the board.

I spoke with staff about this.

And at Doug Walker's suggestion, he said, well, the board is the one who has to make this change rather than staff.

So here I go.

But I want to agree.

I commend both everybody who's worked on this plan.

It has been a long 22 months.

And everybody has been cheerful most of the time and worked really, really hard to find middle ground and things that we could support and, boy,

May, we were there.

We had a draft we had worked with over and over again on various elements.

Each element had been discussed in detail.

And while no one, we never would achieve everybody being in agreement, we had a document that could really be supported by the grand majority of people.

And that was certainly my goal to be able to come to the Planning Commission with a large number of residents to say, yes, we support this.

and working through the challenges of having our initial staff lead the area and very able people who jumped in in the middle to take over and then shifting to virtual really did, I think, stress everybody out.

But we have tried to get our way through this.

but there is a very last minute addition that I asked the board to consider removing from the draft and that is the Tabor block, middle density on page 25 in the land use chapter.

It was not even included until June of 2021.

There was no discussion in the community about this and if it is left in,

My fear is that it will really undermine confidence in master planning all over the county.

I have had calls from people in other master plan districts saying, what's going on here?

I read about this in the newspaper.

And is this going to happen in my neighborhood?

And I said, I don't know.

We're working on this.

It does not live up to the promises that were made with the community and the county as a whole in that introduction chapter when it talks about input and it talks about the community's vision for its future.

So those are really important, I think, elements of longtime 40 years worth of planning for master planning and comprehensive planning in Almonte County that I want to hold on to those really important components.

In the 1980s was the first time I got involved when the rural area chapter was beginning to be done.

I know that process with a capital P is really important in every magisterial district.

And I ask you all to consider how your residents would feel if this abrupt change from protection the original overlay district had large historic houses would be encouraged to be able to transition seamlessly to

multiple units in a large house and protecting the historic structures and the historic trees around them to now having townhouses and apartments, which would require cutting down of every one of those trees in that block and tearing down the six of seven historic houses which are there.

So this may be ready to be discussed in 10 years time or five years time.

But in that five years, we will know how many hundreds of units are on JB Barnes.

We will have the completion of 300 more units at Old Trail, 254 units at Pleasant Green, 120 units at Dominion, 116 units at White Gables.

These are all elements which are in the pipeline now that we may not be aware of because they're not shown in this document.

Logically, this is a 20-year future document.

But I hope we will all be aware of the transition, which is fast underway.

And I will stop in a minute.

But just to say one thing about the demographics and everything were really important.

And let me just find my piece of paper here.

The population changes.

that have happened.

There is a graph that shows the 12% increase in units between 2013 and 2019.

But what was left out was that between 2004 and 2007, 4,000 dwelling units were zoned into Grosse.

And then all this other 12% increase comes after that.

So I hope you will understand the impact on the community when you triple the size of the community in eight years.

and how they're working very hard to welcome all of their new neighbors.

And the new neighbors are equally frustrated with the traffic jams and everything else.

So I just ask you, please, to support the good planning efforts that have gone on and take that one column out of the draft.

And I thank you.

I'm glad to answer any questions or go into other gory detail if people would like that later.

I mean, this was not on the list of questions for us to answer as presented.

Well, I think, actually, it is the general question of general suggestions of changes to the draft.

That is number one on my mind.

I'm just thinking a procedure here

But I think you're asking the board to remove it, period, and not consider it?

What was added in June of this year is what I'm asked to be removed.

Everything else, that one column, if that one column comes out, everything else is ready to rock and roll and go to public hearing.

And I think we will have great support for it.

But because the process did not happen, could not happen because of the time involved, then I don't think it meets the standard of the development of all the rest of the program.

And I'm trying to find my notes where the two questions

are located because I think this request certainly falls within what our questions are supposed to be focusing on.

I'm a little confused about processes.

I thought Donna sort of had a question, and I was expecting staff to answer, although Donna may have said she wasn't sure there was a real answer.

And now Ann has brought this up.

Staff's going to be able to respond.

Yeah, I mean, sometimes these questions get asked in a way where it's hard to decipher I want answered now versus this is for later.

So that's on me, Donna's question.

kind of got a new thing introduced to what was presented as was going to happen.

So we just got to work through this.

So I think, why don't we go through the round, allow supervisors to ask questions based on what was presented, as Donna did.

And Donna, maybe since I missed that, giving staff a chance to respond, we can restate that question because that may be helpful for everybody to understand.

That's satisfactory to everybody?

I'm really good at asking unanswerable questions.

My concern is, and I guess the question is, is there a way to expand middle density housing

broader throughout the master plan, rather than as it appears to me that it's sort of into separated pockets of the master plan.

And that may be that, no, there is not a way to do that.

But that is part of the concern that I have.

And I'm anticipating, going off on a bit of a tangent, that in a few weeks,

The board in our community will be exposed through a presentation on the impacts of land use that has, previously it was mostly a racial discriminatory sort of a situation, today it may be more economic, but it has lasting impacts on community members that affects either the accumulation of generational wealth or

The inability for the accumulation of generational wealth.

And so it's a kind of broader, perhaps, political question than the specific land use.

But as I look at the maps and our materials, it strikes me that the middle density housing is being isolated into separate pockets.

It certainly seems connected to, well, it's connected to the

Sure, I'll go ahead and respond.

So I do think it is a little bit connected to the comments that Supervisor Malek made.

We heard the board's feedback when we had the work session on land use with the board back in April and some of the comments were along the lines of

wanting to allow more affordability in different areas in Crozet.

And we went back to the map and identified the block that Supervisor Malek is talking about now and expanded the middle density to include that area.

So it was previously neighborhood density residential.

We've changed the land use to neighborhood density.

Certainly there are other areas we could add middle density, but as I'm sure many of you have heard, the community feedback has really not supported more growth and additional density.

Thank you for that answer.

I do appreciate the way that you have articulated a desire to balance various inputs that you've received and the desires of different constituencies.

Only just to add that the 2005 and 2010 master plans did seek very much to have distributed all different sizes of houses.

And in the data, it talks about how the majority of houses, 65 or some percent, are single family, but they are all different sizes throughout the community.

And it would be, I think it's

One element that was especially popular in the overlay district that was proposed and then withdrawn was that it would encourage larger homes of any size to be able to be divided within to keep their structures there but have multiple units and some of the houses on this particular Tabor block would in 20, 50 years be perfect or now that up to the owners be perfect for that situation because of their

their locations.

But I think that what people are having a hard time with is the total conflict between different elements of the plan, which is built in.

You can't have 100 units instead of two houses without cutting everything down.

That's just the way it is.

And I think that's the reality we have to

to understand, but everybody was in favor and still is in favor of having all different sizes of units.

They are continually distressed that in those 4,000 units which were zoned into Crozet before

300 of them were to be affordable and for either 21 or 49 or some number fewer than 50 have actually been delivered to people in the income bracket where they were supposed to go and that so I think we need to find a different mechanism to get these housing that is permanently affordable to be done rather than just because people are very concerned that just putting in more units is going to be more units like at The View where that was supposed to be

PHA houses for teachers and firemen, and now it is 126 market rate units on six acres, four acres.

So that's sort of behind it.

But I do think the community tremendously supports having all the different sizes of houses all mixed in together.

I think that's certainly what happens at Old Trail.

Even in the same block, accessory units built in, they are the same way that they are at Belvedere from the starter.

I think the original, there are some scattered lots along St.

Just because this particular question raised some other things, did any other supervisor want to speak to that?

Or I can continue through our order for other questions and comments.

It's Donna's question.

Yeah, we'll go through the order and continue through then.

Supervisor McKeel, I saw your mic come off.

I was just going to comment that I really appreciate Donna asking that question because that's critical to our work.

Just a simple comment.

All right, let's continue through here and we'll see, we'll get through this.

I'm sorry, Supervisor Palmer.

I acted and unfortunately I missed most of the presentation.

But that's OK.

Addressing Donna's question about wanting different types of middle density housing throughout instead of in pockets, I understand that.

But I'm hearing from Supervisor Mallek that the community is against that.

So maybe, no, they're not against that.

They would be in for middle density housing throughout.

Is that correct?

The way it has been discussed in the past is on a parcel by parcel basis rather than a giant project.

And I think that's, in a way, what I was hearing from Supervisor Price speaking was having it sprinkled throughout neighborhoods if one or two properties make a change rather than 25 or 30.

And Supervisor Mallek, while you're still on, please explain to me when you're saying multiple units inside one house.

For example, are you talking about a large, I've seen large Victorian houses that have been turned into a fourplex.

Is that what we're talking about?

Is that what you're talking about?

Yes, and what has already happened.

What has already happened is the garages have been turned into a unit on the same lot.

Or several of the houses in the pictures, in the draft, are candidates for that very purpose.

And some of them have already been.

And that was discussed in photographs during the public meetings.

OK, because I've seen in a lot of, not in this area, but in other areas where garages were turned into living units, and the result is,

is not the best, and the result is not the best for those who are living there.

But it can be, quote, acceptable, but I'm not sure that's what we want, to turn a garage into a living, you know, a housing unit, a living unit, because you're going to get various standards where people try to get by with the bare minimum.

I can see turning a large house maybe into a fourplex or something, a duplex or something like that.

And I think that addresses your issue.

I'm still not quite sure regarding the middle density everywhere.

I mean, I do agree with Vice Chair Price about spreading it out, the middle density throughout the area.

Okay, can you just put up the questions, Rachel again, the two questions because I've kind of lost track what the two questions are.

that we're supposed to be answering.

And then I've got other comments.

But I'll try to do that first.

I think I'm OK with the two questions.

I just can't remember what they are now.

It is there they are.

Do you have any suggested revisions to the draft 2021 present master plan?

The one revision, and I would like to see that done before it goes to public hearing.

So those are those two questions.

My concern is definitely the taper block of middle density.

I'm concerned about the process.

I think that that's the main issue going forward on this, the most

The thing that needs to be taken care of the first, I'm going to, you know, as far as what to do with that property, I'm kind of, I'm a little bit concerned about heat islands there.

You've got a lot of green space there.

Last week I was in Athens, Georgia and I was staying in the historic district of Athens, Georgia.

And one of the things I was really impressed with was all these old Victorian houses, some still privately owned.

other ones divided up into two plexes, four plexes, whatever, and the diversity of living situations in that area.

So I was pretty impressed by the Victorian house.

and the affordability of those apartments.

I actually also years ago bought a Victorian house that was multiplex and turned it back into a single family residence, which I was able to do.

So I think it allows some really nice abilities to keep historic properties, you know.

to keep them present.

But I don't think that my opinion on what we should do with that property right now is the question.

I think you can bring affordability in without taking away the historic nature, and I think the community needs more time to talk about that and decide what they want for themselves.

So I would

agree with Ann.

I would support her request to just remove that middle density going forward and then have more discussions with the community on the next master plan update that they do.

And then I have a question of another thing that I'm just curious about.

OK.

And I'm really late to the table on asking this question.

And I don't know if staff will have anything to say about it.

And maybe this is something we put in the next comprehensive plan review.

But I get a lot of requests from Crozet folks.

And I know that Ann does also to have a recycling center there.

and as I'm wondering how this development goes forward in rezonings or however we're going to do Crozet, if there can be some consideration or discussion in the community about a place for that and the best place for one.

and I'll just throw that out as a future project that I think the community certainly I've heard from wants one.

Thank you.

And that's all my comments.

If the Tabor block is postponed to a future master plan process, I would be saying, yes, it's ready to go to public hearing.

Thank you.

And by the way, I really like the rest of it.

I think it was a great job, and I know it was really, really difficult to do.

So I'm pretty impressed by the job as a whole.

Get myself unmuted.

There we go.

I agree in general.

I think the plan, wow, it shows a lot of work.

I would like just to hear, though,

I'm hearing Ann and Liz both having concerns around the process and something that was just presented to the community out of the blue.

Since we've gone there now, two supervisors have said that.

I'd be happy to respond.

So as I tried to kind of share that our process is pretty iterative.

There's a lot of drafting and revising and getting feedback and making changes to draft content throughout the whole time.

And our rationale for that change later in the process was based on the board's feedback.

The board's first work session on the land use content wasn't until April.

So that was the first time you all got to review and weigh in on the land use plan.

And we heard your feedback.

And in an attempt to respond to that, we made a change to the land use plan in May.

And we brought that out to the Community Advisory Committee and presented it and wanted to hear their feedback and discussion.

And then it has moved forward and been part of the draft since that time.

So the Planning Commission has also seen it.

Yeah, so thank you.

I appreciate that, Rachel.

That's helpful.

I know how sometimes these processes can get misinterpreted sometimes.

Let's just leave it at that.

But I appreciate the community's involvement, and I appreciate staff's attempts to reconcile what multiple groups are saying.

I do agree that I'd like to see the middle density spread out

More, I think.

So I guess I'm not going with exactly what Anna suggested.

I think for me, having pockets like we have can create other problems.

And I would like to see it more spread out.

I have a couple of other things, though.

I think, Ned, if I can go on with another topic or not, you know, just to ask a few other questions.

You all did such a great job.

I just want to say with the introduction especially, I really enjoyed the demographics and the introduction that explained where Crozet is and what it looks like.

just the land use patterns, the housing, all of that I thought was really well done.

And when you look at the demographics, it's pretty obvious that we really want to see if we can't bring some more economic

diversity in as well as diversity of housing opportunities.

I just think it's pretty, it's self-explanatory.

But help me a little bit with the lack of interconnectivity.

And maybe this is, cul-de-sacs are mentioned and maybe I'm misreading this or I'm not getting it right.

And I thought several years ago VDOT stopped

wanting to support or stop supporting cul-de-sacs because of lack of connectivity.

And it looks like we're talking about lots of cul-de-sacs now in the new developments.

And I'm looking at all of our developments for interconnectivity, which helps to reduce traffic issues, I thought.

So maybe if you guys could help me with that a little bit.

And maybe I'm just not reading the right areas, but I was looking on page 18, and I have to say I found the Planning Commission discussion.

So I'm looking at the Planning Commission discussion.

Very interesting.

I really agree with a lot of their comments and a lot of their suggestions.

Sure.

So I think there are a couple of factors that are contributing to the number of cul-de-sacs in Crozet.

One is the topography and the streams in Crozet.

So if you look at some of the maps in the parks and green systems chapter, you can see that there are series of streams running throughout.

So VDOT does have recommendations that cul-de-sac's not been built and that interconnectivity be provided, but there are exceptions.

If there's critical slopes in the way, if there are streams in the way, or if there is flood plain.

So a lot of the cul-de-sacs are for that reason.

Some of them are in older neighborhoods that predated those requirements from VDOT, so they're just there already.

But moving forward, we've tried to identify areas in the plan where connections can be made if redevelopment occurs, especially in an older neighborhood or parcel that hasn't

that might be underdeveloped and might develop in the future where there could be a connection to that property.

And that's really helpful for me from the big picture and I appreciate it a lot because while the Scottsville District and Crozet are very special, some is the Jack Jouett District, which is also very special.

And we have old cul-de-sacs, right, that do create problems with and I would love to sometimes break out of that.

Model and the areas that we've been able to connect.

While sometimes people at first don't appreciate it, once the connections are made, they really learn how helpful it is to have those connections and not have to go out onto main roads and to be providing other routes.

I have another question or just a comment.

I really did appreciate

the suggestion of the change of wording and maybe this isn't getting to what you all are really wanting to hear but I thought that

Talking about Crozet being independent, I like the discussion that Rick Randolph had about the use of independent because we are all one county and what we do in one area affects another area and I think it's important to recognize that we're all in this together.

All the development areas and the rural areas, we're in this together.

I guess it's a concern I have.

And it's about economic development.

There are lots of references in the text around economic development.

And one of the problems we have, I think we recognize, and Ann can correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't have enough businesses in Crozet.

And everybody is having to get on the road and drive to Charlottesville and further into Albemarle County for jobs.

So trying to get businesses to locate in Crozet is critical.

A few years ago, we had a hotel, you know, company chain that wanted to build a hotel desperately in Crozet.

The problem was that they knew they could fill it Thursday through Sunday with the tourists.

But they needed business Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, which meant they needed businesses.

And where I'm going with that is that the area around that Star Hill Brewery and Acme Visible, that area, is a great logical place for business relocation.

But it has the wrong zoning.

And so if we really are serious about getting jobs in Crozet, then I would really hope

that we can fast track a zoning update for that area and not have to wait 10 or 15 years because that would be something that would really allow that area to become commercial

and moved more jobs and businesses into Crozet.

I think it would be a win-win.

So if we could just think about, you know, the comp plan has the wrong zoning.

It's reducing our ability to put businesses there, in my opinion.

And so I'd love to see the light industrial zoning or whatever it might take, but bring that update to us pretty quickly.

You'll be thrilled to know that the light industrial flex, the old purple from 2010, now includes, I mean it always included Star Hill and it includes JB Barnes which is now being built.

and Acme also, that 30 acres there.

So that whole area on 3 Notch Road, 240, both sides from the freezer side of the old Morton plant all the way to like a full block and then a long block on the south side is what's called the employment district, which is incredibly important and incredibly supported and has been for 20 years.

People who live in Crozet have been very concerned about the employment versus resident number.

There's some formula that's not right because there aren't enough jobs.

So we are absolutely all in agreement with you.

But I think the zoning is fine.

I think Rachel can make sure that I'm right.

But it is either purple, red, or employment, heavy industry, or not heavy industry anymore, but light industrial all the way through there.

ACME, luckily, can have no residential because of its Superfund situation.

So that area is protected absolutely from having any rezonings for residents, which makes me very happy.

And it also has a great railroad access right there.

So we have great opportunities.

I know that Roger Johnson and JT Newberry have that in their mind, because it's within a year or so of finishing its remediation.

So I read this and saw economic development and that first thing that went to my mind.

So Rachel, I will appreciate that you all, I had a nice chat with Roger Johnson and he said you all reached out to him and asked, you know, for him to sort of

Look over this document, which was wonderful, and I really appreciate it.

One of the things he said was that that area needed to be, the zoning needed to be dealt with because it was not working for them.

So Ann seems to think it is.

Roger indicated to me just this week that there was an issue.

So I'll just leave it on the table that maybe we need to go back.

But I would love to have that looked at because we need jobs in Crozet.

And if Roger feels like there's a concern, then I'd like it at least double checked, if you don't mind.

And let me just see through my notes here.

I think I was pretty, so the middle, the density which is one of your questions, I indicated I would like it not just in one area.

I could, I'm sorry, I'm just, I had all these notes spread out.

And I guess for right now, that's all.

But let me ask, have I answered your questions, Michaela and Rachel?

And I can share my screen again.

I think we got the feedback from question one.

Well, I would agree for the most part, although I still have a couple of concerns about the

the density and where it's located.

But in general, I would say yes.

Let's see what the other supervisors have to say.

And I think it might have been Ann's concern, but early in the presentation, I think

Tori, you were presenting the piece where you said some supported and some did not.

Was that speaking to this specific block issue that Supervisor Malek, I missed what the reference for the context was.

It was on an earlier slide.

It said some CCAC members supported some property owners in the area.