Board of Supervisors Regular Second Meeting   2/16/2022

of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.

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 Bea LaPisto-Kirtley of the Rivanna District, Supervisor Ned Gallaway of the Rio District, Supervisor Jim Andrews of the Samuel Miller District, Supervisor Diantha McKeel of the Jack Jouett District, Supervisor Ann Mallek of the White Hall District, and myself, Supervisor Donna Price of the Scottsville Magisterial 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.

I would also like to mention that our County Executive, Mr. Jeff Richardson, our County Attorney, Mr. Greg Campner,

At this time, if we will all stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

If you will now join us in a moment of silence.

All right board, at this time we're ready to adopt the final agenda.

Are there any amendments or do I have a motion to adopt the final agenda?

I move approval of the final agenda.

Second.

We have a motion and a second if the clerk will call the roll.

Yes.

Bea LaPisto-Kirtley?

Aye, Ms.

Ballard, yes, Ms.

LeBoeil, yes, Ms.

Price, aye, Ms.

At this time, we'll move to item number five, brief announcements by board members.

Nothing for today, thank you very much.

Thank you.

I do not have any announcements today.

Thank you.

Supervisor Andrews?

No announcements.

Thank you.

I do have an announcement.

Actually, I have two announcements.

Just to let everybody know and remind folks that tomorrow evening at 6.30, Superintendent Matt Haas will be presenting his funding request to the Albemarle County School Board.

And I always enjoy that presentation because they are a large part of our budget.

and it's informative to see Matt and to hear Matt as he presents that budget to the school board.

That's at 6 30 tomorrow night on Zoom and if you go to the Almore County Public Schools website and look under school board you'll see the link to join the meeting.

And then the other announcement is next Thursday the 24th

We have an opportunity, the community has an opportunity, actually they have two opportunities.

The recommendations from the consultants

For the Albemarle County Transit Expansion Study, those recommendations are available now.

And as many of you know, there's a draft document that's out, but they will actually be presenting the recommendations by Zoom next Thursday, the 24th to the RTP meeting, which is at four o'clock.

but the public can also tune in at six o'clock there will be a repeat of just the presentation at six o'clock for folks that want to watch that and oh and I will add our county executive Jeff Richardson will be presenting his funding request next Wednesday I believe at noon Jeff.

So we have, within about a week's time, we have both of those funding requests coming forward to the public.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Thank you.

The only news is that I will be sharing the materials I have gathered for in your board members boxes and also to anyone else who would like to get links and summary documents from the NACo meeting.

I attended the main focus of Saturday was the Environment, Energy, and Land Use Committee.

and we entertained and successfully defeated a whole lot of really bad motions that were brought forward, which was important.

There was a big discussion at the Arts and Culture Commission and had a wonderful presentation, which I will get the link for so others can watch, about arts and culture as an economic development driver and how it's been used very successfully in other communities.

And the Rural Caucus, a large meeting, had government presentations from EPA, from transportation, talking about climate change, opioid management, and different ways to succeed.

Lots of information to share and more on that.

Thank you.

I have a few things briefly to announce.

The first one is that I recently had an opportunity to participate in the VACO chair vice chair training and I really want to give a shout out to our broadband office Michael Cole and Jason Inafuentes under the leadership of our assistant county attorney Trevor Henry.

During that meeting, our broadband office actually has helped to consolidate and coordinate responses from five different counties.

with regard to the CenturyLink issues that we have experienced tremendously here and have helped us in terms of preparing a wonderful response to the state committee that's looking at the sale of this enterprise.

The work they have done not only to help our community members, but those in the region has just been outstanding and I really want to give them a shout out.

It was also a great opportunity just to step away from Albemarle County for a moment and meet with some of the other

Chair and Vice Chairs of different boards and come to appreciate how much we do have here.

Our people, our region, our leadership here on our county team is just extraordinary.

So sometimes it's good to step away from home to realize just how much good we have here.

So I want to give a real shout out to everyone on that.

Last week, Supervisor Diantha McKeel and I were able to participate

and a wonderful ceremony with the Albemarle, Charlottesville Historical Society.

And what was really cool is John and Trula Wright, longtime residents and benefactors, made a very, very generous donation to help bring back the Hatton Ferry.

As you know, it's basically been washed up on the banks of the James River for over a year now.

But what was so cool about this was not only the dedication and commitment that these wonderful people in our community have to help

share their wealth and bring back a really important part of our history.

But Supervisor McKeel's relationship really cemented how this was able to come together.

And you don't get that without really paying attention to the people who live here and building these relationships.

And so I really want to give a shout out first off to the rights, also to the Historical Society, but also to Supervisor McKeel, because she really helped bring all of that together.

And then finally, but definitely not last of all, I just have to tell you how exciting it is to be the supervisor who represents not only the Scottsville Magisterial District, but down in the town of Scottsville as well.

You know, we've got the Rivanna River Company for those who want to experience its trips on the Rivanna River.

We've got the James River Runners and the James River Reeling and Rafting down on the James River.

But I was really excited a couple of days ago to see the coming of the James River Bateau Company.

As you know, the Batteau Festival every year from Lynchburg down to Tidewater.

The Batteaus make their way down the river and Scottsville is the only town on the entire route that they stop and stay overnight.

Now there's a new company that's going to be bringing day tours, sunset tours, private charters.

on Batos down on the James River.

So go online, check it out.

Scottsville is a happening place.

And we all look forward to seeing you come down and enjoy what we've got in the southern part of the county.

So we can move on to item number six, Proclamations and Recognitions.

And we do have one.

which is kind of the best and the worst of times.

It's the best time to be able to recognize someone, but it's also sad when we know that their time with us is coming to an end as they move on.

So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.

I would point out that many supervisors asked to be able to read this particular recognition.

Thank you very much, Chair Price, and hopefully I can get through with this without crying.

So we have Chief Ron Lance with us.

This is a resolution of appreciation for Ron Lee Lance.

Whereas Chief Ron Lee Lance has completed over 33 years of dedicated service as a sworn law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

and whereas Chief Lance has faithfully served the County of Albemarle for nearly 10 of those years, first joining the Albemarle County Police Department as Deputy Chief in 2012 before being appointed Chief of Police in 2016.

and whereas Chief Lance will leave a lasting legacy as the driving force behind creating and successfully implementing the geo-policing program, which apportions the county into two service districts.

This community-based policing model enables police officers to devote more time in the same patrol areas.

thereby increasing familiarity and encourages more positive interactions between police officers and residents of Albemarle County, which provides officers with a greater sense of local concerns, builds stronger ties with the community, and encourages officers

to take ownership of the community's concerns within their assigned area and whereas Chief Lance served the county and the region as chair of the board of directors of the Central Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Academy, which is a certified criminal justice training academy under the authority

of the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, and whereas Chief Lance served the County and the Commonwealth serving on the Executive Committee of the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police and the Virginia Law Enforcement Professional Standards Commission Executive Board,

and whereas Chief Lancer of Albemarle County on the Alcohol Safety Action Program Board for Central Virginia, Charlottesville UVA Albemarle Emergency Communications Center Management Board and the Piedmont Region 8 Special Olympics Torch Run.

Now therefore be it resolved that we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby honor

and command Chief Ron Lands for his many years of exceptional service to Albemarle County and its residents, the Albemarle County Police Department, the broader community in which we live, and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The County of Albemarle is strengthened and distinguished by Chief Lance's dedication, commitment, professionalism, and compassion in meeting the community's needs.

Be it for the reason that a copy of this resolution be spread upon the minutes of this meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors as a last... You're muted.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be spread upon the minutes of this meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors as a lasting visible testament to the esteem in which Chief Lance is held by this board and previous boards for his lasting legacy of community service and the tangible results from his work to make Albemarle County better for future generations.

signed the 16th day of February 2022.

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second to approve the resolution if the clerk will call the roll.

Yes.

Mr. Bea LaPisto-Kirtley?

Aye.

Mr. Mallek?

Yes.

Mr. McKeel?

Yes.

Mr. Price?

Aye.

Yes.

All right, thank you.

Board, Chief Lance, I do want to let you know that our county leadership

has deferred to make comments today.

They would like to wait and hold that for you at the ceremony that will be coming up for you, but they do want to thank you here today and they will again at that event.

So you'll be hearing more from Mr. Richardson, Mr. Walker, I'm sure others at that event.

So Chief, I'd like to turn it over to you first for any comments that you may have.

Thank you, Chair Price.

I appreciate that.

Thank you for reading that.

You made me almost cry.

So I'm going to be brief because I'll get choked up.

I did a radio interview last, I guess it was the first part of February, and started getting choked up.

So I don't want to do that today.

But it's truly been an honor.

to be your chief and to serve the board, the community, and the men and women of the Albemarle County Police Department.

We've got a really good thing here with our police department, and I'm so excited that I was able to be the chief.

It's hard to believe I've been here over nine years, but it went by pretty quick.

I think the chief years are like dog years.

I count each one of those as dog years.

and my hair is getting a little gray now.

You used to ask me that when you would see me if I've gotten grayer, but it's truly been an honor and you know my career over 33 and a half years this has been the highlight the last almost six years as being Chief.

We've had some ups and downs as you know we've had plane crashes, we've had train crashes, we've had COVID, we've had floods, we've had statues, we had unfortunate

Tragic things that happened back in August of 2017 and during COVID, how we've had to pivot, you know, the police department and this community to be able to serve the community the best we could.

So it's been a very challenging six years, almost six years as chief, but I wouldn't have traded it for anything.

the men and women of this police department do phenomenal work every day a lot of it goes unseen unnoticed and that's the way they like it they're like me the recognition stuff is for other folks and we just want to do our job but i truly appreciate the board i appreciate the county executive county executive's office olt that i get to work with what a blessing

I would say probably one of the best OLTs that I've ever been around or associated with in this county leadership.

So Jeff has done a great job picking a great team.

And I'm just honored that you guys took a chance on me back in, I guess you voted on it back in May of 2016 for me to be your chief.

And I hope I didn't let you down.

And I know the department's in great hands.

I know Major Reeves will take it to the next level.

And I'm going to stand on the sidelines and be his cheerleader for that.

Thank you, Chief.

Okay.

I think she needs a few moments, so we'll go next.

Chief, I'm sincerely grateful and appreciative of your service.

I don't know if a man in your position would think of the word or many people for police chiefs would think of the word grace, but you've certainly handled this position in everything that not just our locality has been through, but the country has been through relative to policing with grace and dignity.

And I, for one, am very grateful for that.

Your even-keeled nature and approach, I think, has been exactly what we have needed, is exactly what we hoped for.

for anybody that holds the position.

And that's because of your service in your tenure.

So I appreciate always being there when I've had questions and the responsiveness as appropriate.

And I know on behalf of the whole county that everybody is appreciative of your service for them.

So I look forward to saying a few more things to you one on one later this month.

Thank you.

Supervisor Andrews.

Chief Lance, I don't think we've met in person on the board.

We haven't met in any other capacity either, fortunately, but I know I really appreciate your leadership.

I just felt that the county has been in great hands in terms of the police force for some time, and we really owe you a debt of gratitude for that.

Thank you.

Oh, I came up fast.

Ron, we really are going to miss you.

You have been our police chief during terribly stressful times, not only locally, but certainly nationally.

And I think Ned alluded to it, that you just handled it with great grace and you role modeled for your officers.

And I think that speaks very highly of your work for us.

I don't think there was ever a time that I reached out to you, whether it was by phone call or to just ask you to speak to a group or even work with me with a resident that had a problem or just needed understanding of what was happening in our police department.

You always stepped up to the plate, did it immediately.

and you really were able to inform the public and give them a sense of reassurance and we have a very, very safe community and we really thank you very much for that.

I will give you an example of just today.

I thought it was really very, it's very applicable.

I had a call today from a resident in Albemarle County that I didn't know, and he was calling me because he had a problem, not a terrible problem, but a minor problem, but he felt it was significant enough to contact the police.

and he said the police officer came out and chatted with him and sent him to me as his supervisor.

He's new to the area and he said, I don't think in all my days I've ever had a police officer in any of the communities I've lived in refer me to their commissioner or their supervisor.

And he said, that really made me feel good.

It speaks very well of our community.

So I think we're all a team, and I'm crying too.

So I'm going to stop.

But thank you for your service, Ron.

We're going to miss you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

And I will again pounce on you on the 23rd.

As a new supervisor in 2008, I represented a district which had not had good experience with their former police department.

Leadership change was essential.

And this began with the arrival of Colonel Sellers in 2010.

And thank heavens he also brought you along.

Ron, you have carried on and strengthened these radical improvements to the department.

And I'm so grateful that we were able to steal you both from Fairfax all those years ago.

Geo policing has been such a success and changed the experience of citizens with the department.

Sending Jerry Utes out on his bicycle to be the day patrol in Crozet developed a wonderful communication with residents there.

Keeping officers in the district and having them drop into community meetings when they can.

So important to change that relationship and to gain the confidence of these folks.

It's one of the best increases in budget I have ever fought for has been to add officers and strengthen the department.

And thank you for leading and really advocating for the officers because that doesn't always happen.

But at budget time, we need our chief to really be advocating for his membership.

And thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

Chief, you may be retiring.

But you'll always be Chief.

You've earned that.

More than just the Southern Colonel, you've earned that.

My interaction with the Albemarle County Police Department was long before I thought about running for office.

And it has been nothing but professional on numerous situations and in times that I have interacted with them.

And I

and I put all of that squarely at your feet because it's leadership.

And the public only has confidence in law enforcement when they also have confidence that they will behave and be held responsible commensurate with their authority because we do give great, great authority to our law enforcement.

And what you have done and your officers under your leadership have done has built up a degree of confidence in law enforcement in our community

that I suspect is unmatched around the country.

And that is all to your credit, and you will be able to take that with you.

And we also have great confidence in your relief that the new chief, when he takes over in a few weeks, will continue and as you say, bring it to the next level, because that's what we always want to do.

I always look at law enforcement very similar to my experience in the Navy, my 25 years.

And when I retired,

There were two things that really made me feel good, and I hope that you have exactly those same feelings.

The first one is that you are capable of serving longer if you wanted to, that you are leaving really at a prime time.

The second is that everyone, as we see you retire, wishes that you were staying longer rather than one of those situations where people are saying, well, we really are glad that guy's leaving.

We hate to see you leave because you have done such a great job.

But we leave, or you leave, us knowing that we have confidence that the force will continue

after your retirement.

And again, I will also see you again soon, but could not be happier for you and your family and more thankful for our community.

This is my last chance, right?

I have a special bond with Chief Lance.

He knows it.

I know it because of our backgrounds.

Anyway, he's done a phenomenal job in this position.

And you know, when our community feels safe,

Our officers look good, and our community does feel safe because of our officers.

And the way they conduct themselves is directly, we point the finger at you.

You're the one that made sure that that happened, brought in community policing.

That's made a big difference.

Our community can trust our police officers because what you brought in.

I remember when I first met you, you told me you came in and you told your officers, I am the future.

And you were correct.

We needed that.

And you were the future.

And I know you've also passed that down onto incoming Chief Reeves.

And I'm going to miss you.

I'll see you again at the celebration.

And I will tell Sean, future Chief Reeves, what I told you is I've got your six.

I'll have his six.

and we're very supportive of the police department because of what you have instituted and what you've done for the police department, the professionalism, the caring, the compassion and how that spells out for our residents.

It makes them feel comfortable.

Thank you.

Chief, you have stood the watch.

And at least for today, you are relieved.

That's right.

Thank you so much.

All right, board, we will move on to item number seven, matters from the public.

I do understand that people have signed up, so I will turn it over to our clerk's office.

Well, actually to Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley to read the rules and then to our clerk's office to identify our first speaker.

Thank you, Chair Price.

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.

A 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 comments directly to the board as a whole.

If you have written statements and other supporting material, 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 end your comments and the microphone will be muted.

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 each of the public comment periods permitting.

Back and forth debate 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 nine, star nine to let us know you want to speak.

then star six from my landline to unmute.

All right, thank you.

Okay, thank you, Ms.

Borgerson.

Ms.

My name is Judy Slushall, Ryer district resident and member of the Rio 29 CAC.

On February the 4th, David Benish sent an email to CAC members of the draft of phase one portion of the Rio Road corridor plan for review with notation that there is no substantive change to the recommendations from what was presented in October 2021.

David Venish stated that once phase two work has been completed, draft plan for phase two will be developed, combined with phase one draft, and both will move forward to be presented to you, the board, for review.

Maybe I missed the purpose behind presentations to the CAC, which I thought was to give input to the presenter, both positive as well as negative.

If I recall during Daniel Heyer's presentation, there were questions about the design.

Please keep in mind that early in the process, there was a survey to obtain community members to serve on a focus group.

However, the right demographics were not obtained, so the focus group ideal was shelved.

Therefore, everything in this report appears to be a unilateral input from Lyon and Gray.

A few areas along Royal Road were mentioned, but not indicating any residents' input.

Those who live and will be greatly affected from Dunlora, Dunlora Park, Shepherd's Ridge at Dunlora, Dunlora Forest,

by the proposed plan haven't been asked for any input.

Several CAC members who live in the corridor have questions and gave input, but nothing seems to have been considered.

I currently am waiting for a response from an email questioning several items in phase one draft of the Rile Corridor Plan.

When this report comes before you, please look carefully at the following items to see if anything changes.

Please do not unanimously vote for approval, but ask questions.

Points to ponder.

Page 7, item 3.

Peanut bean shaped roundabout located at Old Brook and Hillsdale.

I thought it was to be eliminated.

Page 8, number 7.

Gives renditions of trees planted on the roadway, medium buffer strip.

I brought up about the unsightly junipers on Rio Del Laura intersection.

with nobody taking on maintenance responsibility.

Daniel Hayo's response was, I brought up a good point.

Page 10 indicates that VDOT roundabout is preferred, yet line and grade rendition labeled as an alternative concept is still in the document.

Page 13, item number 8 is a summary of demographics and talks about the Greenbrier neighborhood.

Why is this included when the area is located in the city limits?

Previously, David Benesch mentioned that the sidewalk would be asphalt because this is easier to destroy than poured concrete, not knowing the exact location of the roundabout.

Why then is the sidewalk poured concrete?

At the January 27th CAC meeting, Daniel Heyer mentioned the possibility of a roundabout at Penn Park Road.

Is this wishful thinking for his company?

Roundabouts are the buzz design for road design.

Don't you think one at Old Brook and Hillsdale

John Warner Parkway, Dunlora, Penn Park is overkill with this design feature all within a few miles.

Please stay tuned for phase two draft merging with phase one draft.

Ask questions when presented for your review.

Thank you.

With apologies, that was our assistant to the clerk, Grace Tamblyn, who identified our previous speaker.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Neil Williamson, and I serve as the president of the Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization focused on central Virginia's local government.

As this is the week of Valentine's Day, I really want to love the housing Albemarle incentive package you will be discussing later today.

We have been proponents for more housing everywhere for everyone since our inception in 2003.

Albemarle staff has recognized the need to engage the development community in developing these solutions.

We applaud their outreach.

The Free Enterprise Forum has been an active member in these conversations and it's encouraged that some, though not all, of the concepts discussed have been included in this proposal.

While we want to love it, there is one small change and three substantive changes that we believe will make these changes in Cupid's Quiver to make the proposal a viable valentine.

First, the small change.

On the last page regarding waiver reduction of development standards, change the word may to the word shall.

The reality is Albemarle's fast diminishing development areas have parcels easiest developed have been developed.

That means parcels left to develop will likely require special use permits.

While the policy anticipates this reality, the option for staff denial is too great.

If the language could be changed to allow specific performance agreements to be used, then the word shall should be approved.

Absent this change, the entire paragraph will be meaningless by this enormous loophole to be exploited by those who oppose development in the designated development areas.

In any relationship, both sides should be giving something.

The Free Enterprise Forum does not believe the current incentives package is robust enough and suggests additional incentives to make the relationship work.

Number one, Albemarle County pays ACSA hookup fees.

This would result in Albemarle having a real investment in these projects.

Considering the import of affordable housing to the community, certainly providing $20,000 per affordable unit is not too much to ask.

Number two, tax abatement with performance agreements.

rebate the increase of property tax incurred by the residential development.

By building this into the plan, Albemarle retains the ability to draft each performance agreement specific to each project.

Finally, and you knew I would mention it, expand the development area.

At the end of the day, there is not enough supply to meet demand.

This is in your control.

The Free Enterprise Forum, using Albemarle's own numbers, has projected the development areas will be exhausted by 2044.

In the meantime, this government-induced land scarcity will result in ever-increasing lot and housing costs.

Absent these additions, we anticipate most residential development projects will bypass the rezoning and develop at a lower density without any affordable housing included.

Thank you.

We will bring this item to a close and we will now move to item number eight, our consent agenda.

If there are no items to be pulled, we have a motion to approve the consent agenda.

So moved.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

If the clerk will call the roll.

Ms.

Gallaway.

Ms.

Obristo-Kirtley.

Aye.

Ms.

Mallard.

Yes.

Ms.

McDaniel.

Sorry, yes.

Ms.

Price.

Aye.

Ms.

At this time, we'll move to item number nine, work session, developer incentives for affordable housing.

And board, as you know from the executive summary, the staff is looking for the board's guidance on where to move from here.

And Dr. Pethio, will you be leading this off?

Members of the board, I'm happy to be here today.

And I am here today to present an overview of a potential developer incentive program to support efforts to provide affordable housing.

The incentive program to be discussed today is in the form of, oh, I should give you my, I'm sorry, I'm a little distracted.

There you go.

Perfect.

Thank you.

And I apologize for that.

The Incentives program that's being presented today is in the form of

And while overlay districts are not a new concept in the county, an overlay to incentivize affordable housing is, so staff felt it was important to bring this to the board early on in the process and go over a broad scope for a potential program to receive your feedback before working on program details.

But this is just a broad overview of what will be discussed today.

So I will start on a little bit of background about how we got here.

Then we'll move on to a description of the overlay concept itself, and review some of the feedback that has been received from developers.

Staff will present some alternative options to an affordable housing overlay, and we'll wrap up the presentation with some potential next steps.

And at that point, we will open up to board questions and discussion.

I did want to present these two questions for you now.

We will be seeking board's feedback on two primary points this afternoon as shown here.

We will revisit these at the end of the presentation, but thought it would be helpful to present them now to help frame the discussion later on and perhaps the way you view the presentations.

So to start with some background, on July 7, 2021, as you may remember,

The board adopted Housing Albemarle, the county's new housing policy, but at that time the board directed staff to delay some implementation of three of the strategies as shown here on the slide until a package of developer incentives could be approved and implemented.

And so staff began working on that package shortly after that.

We did engage with developers and we had four meetings with developers between June and October of last year.

During the first two meetings, staff listened to developer concerns and discussed housing policy goals.

Based on that feedback collected during those meetings and research into incentive programs implemented in localities within Virginia and across this country.

Staff developed a list of potential incentives that could be in a package.

These were discussed with developers during two meetings between July and October of last year.

And then staff went back and took that feedback and developed this broad outline of an affordable housing overlay district.

And it was shared with developers during a meeting in December of last year.

Just as a broad overview of this, the overlay would really work to meet the overall housing goal of promoting a full range of housing choice and encouraging the construction and preservation of housing for low and moderate income households.

The overlay is structured as optional, which would be applied to the development areas.

It would offer a bonus density

reduction in building permit fees and flexibility and design and parking standards.

More specifically, the overlay would allow parcels to develop to the comprehensive plan maximum density without the need for rezoning.

would require a minimum 20% affordable housing to be provided in those projects.

And those units should be priced at the levels recommended in the housing policy.

And that would be an exchange for that higher density.

And the overlay would also offer some additional incentives.

In terms of the bonus density, the overlay would offer up to a 45% increase in the maximum allowable risk residential density allowed under the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan.

If there is a disagreement between that maximum density between the zoning ordinance and comp plan, then the comprehensive plan density would take precedence.

The amount of density bonus provided could be on a sliding scale and linked to the percentage of affordable units included in the project, with higher density bonuses being provided for higher percentages of affordable units.

And the number of affordable units to be required would be calculated prior to applying the density bonus.

This would provide developers with additional market rate units to help offset the cost of making the affordable units available.

The overlay would also reimburse building permit fees associated with the affordable units.

The fees would be reimbursed after certificates of occupancy have been issued and the county verifies that the affordable units were occupied by income qualifying households.

The fees would be reimbursed on the sliding scale based on the percentage of affordable housing provided with higher amounts of building fees being reimbursed for higher percentages of affordable units.

And they would also offer additional rebates of fees on another slide of scale for projects that provided housing at lower affordability levels as shown here.

The overlay would also offer building permit fee reductions.

I'm sorry, front slide.

An additional incentive would be some flexibility in design standards.

Several of the incentive programs reviewed by staff include this type of flexibility, as well as the requirements shown on the slide.

Locally, staff could identify a number of design standards, such as additional building height or reduce setbacks that developers could choose from.

So it'd be like an a la carte menu, predetermined, that could be applied to a project.

One final incentive that could be included in the overlay is flexibility and parking standards.

The county zoning ordinance already includes this type of incentive, so this would just be wrapped into this package itself.

Staff received some feedback from developers after the December meeting.

Three other questions are addressed under the overlay itself, and so that would include

Density bonuses, questions, the design standards, and parking standards.

Concerns about site constraints that often limit the density that can be achieved on that site.

That can be addressed by basing the affordable unit and density bonus calculations on a site's developable acreage, not just the gross acreage.

How density would be calculated, mixed use projects has not been determined yet.

That would be determined as a draft overlay is developed, should you wish to move forward with that.

And the final bullet in the list was not directly discussed during the meetings with developers, but this is something that staff has heard quite a bit about over the last couple of years being in the county.

It's really difficult to market the affordable units to income qualified households.

And that's really an important issue.

It has meant that many of our

For sale units in particular have turned market rate without being purchased by income-qualified households.

There are several localities in Virginia that have implemented affordable dwelling unit programs, and through those programs have established waiting lists for their affordable units.

That includes both affordable units for sale.

and affordable units for rent.

These waiting lists help ensure a ready stream of potential buyers and renters for those units.

And that may be something the county might consider establishing if this moves forward.

It's important to discuss some alternative options than an affordable housing overlay.

The staff does believe the overlay could be an effective tool to support affordable housing development with minimal cash investment of public dollars, but there are several others to choose from.

The first is a reimbursement of the residential weight water and wastewater connection fees.

This fee varies by project, but based on the

F.Y.

22 ACSA budget document, the average per unit cost for TAP fees is approximately $13,470.

Staff looked at three

Three projects that were approved through the rezonings in 2021.

Those included Premier Circle, RST Residences, and Rio Point.

Those three projects will provide a total of 414 affordable units.

Reimersing 100% of those TAPPs would cost the county approximately $5.6 million.

Refunding half of those fees would be obviously approximately $2.3 million.

That would only increase

There is also the option for real estate tax rebates through public-private partnerships.

This is already offered by the county through the project-enabled grant program that is administered by the Economic Development Office.

The grant provides rebates of a percentage of increased real estate property taxes.

The projects applying for a grant must meet a but for

If it was not for the grant, then the project would not be able to move forward.

The county does have two of those partnerships right now for affordable housing.

One is supporting the Brookdale Apartments.

That amount is for approximately $1.5 million over 20 years.

We also have an agreement with Southwood.

The development project and that provides $1.4 million in tax rebates over 10 years.

And a per unit cost, obviously the longer the grant term, the lower the per cost unit.

So the per cost unit for Brookdale is $781 per unit and at Southwood it's $1,867 per unit.

And finally, staff thought it was important to discuss one final option, and that would be the creation and implementation of affordable dwelling unit program.

This is a type of inclusionary zoning, and it must be implemented through a zoning text amendment.

And so in other words, this is not a voluntary program.

This is mandatory.

It would apply to projects undergoing rezoning or special use permit approval processes.

It could require 20% affordable units be included in residential projects and could incorporate the other incentives discussed here today.

Loudoun County is a good example of a successful affordable dwelling unit program.

their program offers a 20% increase in maximum gross density in exchange for 17% of the units in the project being affordable.

They set their affordable unit pricing at 30 to 70% AMI for their poor sale units and

to 50% AMI for rental units.

To date, so this is as of December 2021, they have built 2,272 units for purchase, affordable units for purchase, and 85% of those have been purchased by income qualified households.

And they have 289 affordable rental units in their program.

And those have served more than 2,000 residents throughout the entire

They, Loudoun County is one of those counties that has a waiting list for their affordable dwelling units, which helps them place people into those units automatically.

Should the board support the development and creation of an affordable housing overlay, then the next steps would be staff would go and do a full analysis of program component.

resource needs for implementation, work with developers to identify the specific components of the program and schedule a work session with the board in May to review those.

So now we will move on to discussion and again I will revisit the questions we saw at the beginning.

And there are really two questions that staff is interested in receiving feedback on today.

The first is, does the board support an affordable housing overlay that rebates building permit fees for affordable housing units?

And the second question is,

Thank you Dr. Pethio.

Yes, thank you very much Dr. Pethio.

So to answer your questions one and two, as of right now I don't have a problem with those.

I do have a couple questions in regards to something else in your presentation.

You mentioned Loudoun County and you mentioned that they had a waiting list for renters and owners.

I understand that the previous policy we had over 10 years that only yielded 44 homes being sold, that part of the problem was we did not have a waiting list.

So have we developed one or will we be developing one?

That's a very good question, thank you.

That is something that we would like to establish.

Okay, because I would think that if we build all these affordable units, but don't have a waiting list, then we're doomed to fail.

And I would not want to see that.

My other question is, I know you discussed parking.

And then I think I brought this up with you before.

And I do know that we do allow underground parking.

because I for one don't want to see development go into the rural areas.

I want to keep development in the development areas.

I think as we move forward, maybe not right now, but in the future, I think we do need to consider underground parking for some of these

developments for some of these apartments and units where they have underground parking, thereby being able to build additional units or have additional green space.

And I realize, granted, underground parking is more expensive, but I think that would be a way to go in the future of making sure that we keep our development in the development areas.

Those are all the questions right now.

Thank you for your presentation.

Dr. Pethia, do you have any responses to that right now?

I'm not saying you have to, or do you want to just get all of the questions now and come back to us?

No, I think we can go through the questions and come back to this.

All right.

Thank you, Dr. Pethia.

Yeah, thank you, Dr. Pethi.

I want to study that approach.

This is one I think you'll have to respond to right off.

I think it was Supervisor Price and some questions that were sent beforehand that talked about the using rival point as an example.

The densities and all of that.

One, I think it's important to talk through kind of what you explained in the writing.

But in addition, the process.

So had RioPoint came to us, if this overlay was in existence, I'm using RioPoint because it's in my district and I wouldn't throw anybody else under the bus, plus you already have a foothold on it, picking up somebody else's controversial application.

But I think it's important for the board to understand that if this overlay was in existence, we know how the up-zonings, re-zonings come to us now and work through the process.

So it would work very similarly to how the form-based code is operating.

To be honest, you see neither are we because we've never had an application come through with the form-based code.

So all of this is theoretical, but we got to do our best to go, okay, we know how a rezoning happens and Ryle points the example.

Forget the form-based code.

I don't know how to compute that, but what's the process for the board?

Where are checkpoints?

Where's the planning commission?

How do we address impacts?

So a lot of those checkpoints would happen as this overlay is being developed.

Through the overlay, there is the possibility, and it's probably a good one, would be to, at each part of the way, to identify

density levels that the board is comfortable with, identify development standards the board is comfortable being flexible with.

and taking those into the overlay itself so that there is a checklist and when a developer applies to develop under the affordable housing overlay, if it meets the standards laid out in the overlay, then that can move forward without any other type of review.

So all of the things that we kind of debate and etc.

when an application is in front of us, we're defining ahead of time in the overlay, so we don't have to have those debates.

Correct.

All right, so Ryle Point, if I'm understanding the answer, would have had 1,300 units allowed the way the math was done?

That is correct.

So right now it's like 380, I think, is what's there based on.

So at some point we have to wrestle with the gross density, the net density.

I understood why you picked the gross.

That's based on looking at other practices, et cetera.

As the supervisor of record for 380 units, 1300 and some were going in there, I might have to move out of the state.

So how do we get between the theory of how it's calculated?

And I heard some developers asking questions of, well, if you really only have 75% of the acreage is developed,

and I get their concern because they're saying, well, I have to provide more affordable than I would if it were based on a net that's less affordable units.

So hope that I'm tracking all of that.

But how do we wrestle with that?

How do we deal with, all right, Rio Point for to have almost 13, 1400 units there based on

all the units that have popped up there before, that's a difficult thing for me to comprehend at this stage.

So how does the board address that or how are we going to deal with such an increased amount of density?

Well, I'll let you respond.

I'll stop talking, thinking out loud.

The 45% increase in density was selected based on programs from other areas across the country.

So that's just a number that was put out there.

That can definitely be reduced to make people feel comfortable.

As I did the calculations, I do know 1300 is a large number.

So it can definitely be decreased below 45% and make it something that's more

I don't know what those would look like right now, but that's something that I can bring back to the board.

So that is one way to do that.

Looking at the

gross density versus net density.

One of the ways to deal with that issue is to actually base the calculations on the amount of land that is actually available to be developed.

So after we remove the easements,

any required spaces land for say open space or parks those can be removed from the equation those are provided by the developer in their applications anyway so the information is there and we can base the density increase on that number as opposed to the entire site.

Yes, Supervisor Galloway if I could Charles Routh, Deputy Director of Community Development.

I was looking at Rio Point property, so I think that just to clarify those numbers, so at 45% of the maximum allowed density, that was designated in the future land use map as urban density residential, so 34 units an acre.

45% of that would drop that down to 15 units per acre.

So 15 units per acre times that whole site,

Little over 25 acres, comes to somewhere around 375 units, which is actually pretty close to what we ended up getting with RioPoint.

If you remember, there was a range, I think the range went up to 600 or so, a little over 600 when that was brought to us.

So it actually fall pretty similar to what we ended up with.

What did I miss?

Where did I hit the 1,300 in the written response?

Was that a math thing that I just misunderstood?

Yeah, I'm not sure.

I might have to ask Dr. Pettee on that one, because when I did the calculation of 25 acres or so for the largest parcel over there minus the small center one,

Yeah, that's where we came out to at 50 units per acre.

So even if you doubled that, you'd be up to a little over 700 units per acre total if it was at 34 units an acre.

That's what I'm looking for.

I can work through that.

The mixed use calculation.

So let me go and make another easy one for me.

The small area plan is a place that we've said or targeted for density, mixed use, development, redevelopment, and allowed for height.

And under some of the density numbers that I believe an overlay would help us achieve, that seems to be a target area for that occur.

And then we also have form-based code

Well then, just to complicate matters, I suppose, or I don't know, maybe it makes it easier.

But in any case, it seems to me that, you know, doing an overlay for the entire development area, knowing that there are significant differences depending on which development area you're talking about.

that a small array of plans such as the one at Rio 29 could be a place where if you carved off some overlays for that portable housing because already we've said height's going to happen there, the units can happen there, the density is going to happen there, we had the infrastructure there.

I'm just throwing this out as a maybe to help

Yet again with what form-based code was designed to do was to start getting the development to happen there.

This could be another way to do that as a pilot, like it's sort of a pilot for form-based code, as we continue to work through the consideration of an overlay for the entire development area.

I'm just throwing that out as a thought.

I don't know if you guys have had a lot of

consideration or conversations yet about the overlay and specific to the small area plan.

This has to get calculated in there somehow.

But I mean, I guess my point is that should be a priority because we've identified it as yes, this is where the most density can go.

And we're good with height.

We're good with some of the things that I'm hearing in this overlay.

Now this, I'm going to pull in Neil's comment about the, he had mentioned the tax abatement with the performance agreement.

Why are we saying that even if, let's say you just got this, we approved it, you got the overlay and the incentives in it.

Are we saying that that's, that if a developer came forward, that all the incentives under there are available and on the table?

They get the parking, they get the development standards, they get the density bonus, they get all of it.

And if we had a project, an incentive that wasn't thought of or included in the package, back when we first said we were going to start working on incentives, I said, well, if somebody had an idea for an incentive for a project, bring it forward.

Let's consider it.

But the tax abatement with performance agreements, one, understood that you kind of said it was through project enable.

But I guess I don't see why we have to limit or define specific incentives to the exclusion of other possible incentives that may make a project work that the board can consider at any given time.

So regardless of what we do, I hope we're saying that these are not definitive.

and that there's more flexibility.

I'm going to have to ponder the fact that we're throwing all of the incentives on the table.

Look, to me it seems like there should be a way to go well.

You know, the big concern for the small area plan and the housing was the rental piece moving to 60% AMI.

Well, to help that pencil a certain way, it would seem to me one or two of these incentives help do that, but is all of them necessary to be all thrown into the basket at the same time?

That could become expensive.

Maybe it should be that way, maybe that's the case, but since I wasn't clear if it was going to be all or nothing, I'll have to ponder on that more.

Is there incentives in here for meeting old targets?

So those were based on the new housing policy recommendations.

So the housing policy recommends that rental housing pricing be set at 60% AMI and sale units be set at 80% AMI.

So you would get additional a higher

Yeah, so I misunderstood that when it popped up.

I just my brain went to the wrong spot.

Alright, I'm going to stop there for now.

I will hear what other folks have to ask and I'm not in regard to your specific questions.

I'm not opposed to anything at this point.

Hi, thank you.

I really appreciate this conversation about this and I'm finding it very challenging.

I shared a lot of Ned's concerns about the question about the example with Rio and I don't understand where we just got to in that discussion, but not to belabor that at this time.

The first thing though is that there seems to be a discussion of how this fits with, compares to a form-based code and I just feel like they're different animals.

Form-based code is my understanding really can look at the area very carefully where the form-based code is applied and know that in advance that this is where it's going in and this is what it's trying to accomplish.

Whereas this is kind of just opening it up to saying well you know this is the way we're going to go when

When somebody comes in with a plan that includes some affordable housing, which I applaud that we're trying to help with the affordable housing.

I guess until I get some clarity on that issue of how much affordable housing comes into this, my gut feeling is that I

I guess I feel like Albemarle County and the area is sufficiently unique that to go with the gross numbers is doing a disservice to the terrain and the nature of the land that we really need to be able to look at site development acreage in order to make sense of how much affordable housing, how much housing can go in, how much of development.

So I guess I would advocate to look really hard at sliding scales

for a lot of these.

I think that even within this, maybe even with the fees that we

So yeah, I'm open to the ideas there and I'm open to considerations of some adjustment of some standards, but that's the one that still troubles me a lot.

I guess and I thought Supervisor Galloway was going there.

We have a process now by which a developer's proposal is looked at by perhaps the CAC and then has an open hearing about it in a planning commission meeting and then it comes to the board and often this this is very expensive process and time consuming process but at the same time it also means that when we're looking at what we're going to

compromise on, we have some clear notion and the neighbors have some clear notion of what it is that's being put in.

This seems, you know, it's going to take a lot of thought to think through what's on the table and what's not with respect to are we talking about buffer zones, are we talking about, you know, a lot of different things here.

I don't have, you know,

A definite problem with some of it, like parking for example, I think that there are a lot of ways that could work.

There are obligations that will come with that in terms of public transportation, but I think it's something that we can consider.

I guess I would caution, there's been a lot of discussion about having looked at a lot of different jurisdictions.

But I would really be interested in hearing more about looking not only at what they're doing, but how successful they are at what they're doing.

So Loudoun County's proposals, for example, their program, I guess, has been in place long enough to have a little bit of a history.

It looks to me like it's having some success.

Those are the ones we want to emulate if we can, if they work for our circumstances,

not necessarily just looking at what everybody's doing without knowing whether what everybody's doing is working.

So let's see.

Those are my main concerns at this point.

So I'm going to come on to the next person.

If you have any responses before, that'd be great.

Supervisor McKeel.

Yes, thank you.

And I just want to take the time to thank those that sent in questions and those that spent a lot of time answering questions because they were very, very helpful.

And many of them were examples, right?

trying to play this out and that that was helpful although I do agree we need to figure out the one that Ned mentioned because I'm a little confused about that one now too so having said all that though I do appreciate all the work that's gone into this and all the meetings with the developers along the way.

Just a comment on what Jim just said because while I all agree we need to look at other communities

There's no reason to reinvent the wheel.

We all understand that.

I can't imagine, Stacy, that you don't look at other communities without looking at the successes they've had.

Yes, I do look to see how successful they are in looking at Virginia localities that have affordable dwelling unit programs.

We know that Charlottesville has had one for a number of years.

They are looking to change theirs.

Theirs has been not as successful as they had hoped it would be, so there are lessons to be learned from that program.

Loudoun County was one that I have found to be really successful and easy to implement and understand.

Fairfax County has a fairly robust affordable dwelling unit program.

They've had a good deal of success behind that.

It's been in place since 1971.

I believe theirs is really complicated.

I sort of shied away from that.

I am very happy to pull together information about those types of programs in Virginia.

if that would be helpful.

I was just going to say you referenced them in the report, you know, in our, but you don't really give an idea of the successes.

I just couldn't imagine that you weren't asking for the successes and using that as a baseline and maybe, I don't know that you need to go back right now, although maybe some folks would like to have it, but it would be good in the future to just at least mention

that these were not just pulled out of the hat, that they were actually what the success was.

If you could do that, I'm not sure.

To make it really simple, your two questions that you ask up front, I really don't have a problem with saying, for the most part, yes.

I mean, I'm not against, right?

I do like the idea a lot of what Bea was going to, and you mentioned too, Stacey, the waiting list.

That makes perfect sense to me.

I understand probably the challenges of figuring out who would handle that waiting list, how it would be, but it's really going to be critical if we make the program work, it would seem like to me.

So it's worth the effort, even if it has a budget implication to it.

That's just speaking for me, but we've got to have a program that actually works.

and the waiting list seems to be a successful one.

One of the questions that I did want to, oh, one quick clarity.

That is correct.

And that is so, that's correct.

And that is so that those that the income

And I'm sorry, I went away for no reason.

I don't know what happened, but I don't I think I caught your answer.

The bonus density units are all at market rate was what you said.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

I did notice, and it's been alluded to before, can you help me a little bit with the form-based code?

Because form-based code was referenced a lot in

and I'm trying to figure out how they kind of marry and maybe that's for a discussion for a better day, but that's just a comment because we spend so much time on foreign-based code.

Still not sure I exactly get it to be perfectly honest with you.

Well, it seems like there are enough questions.

I think a few other people had questions about foreign-based code, right?

And Ned has his hand up.

I mean, I think Stacey brought up form-based code, meaning that process-wise, the housing overlay would work the same way that if somebody came under our form-based code would work for development in the form-based code.

So if you come to the small area plan of Rio 29, and you bring a project forward that meets the parameters of what's defined in the form-based code, it goes through.

There's no hurdles, it's fast, it's easy, it's like picking out

development by the catalog and going, I'm going to do that.

And then that should give me the fastest way to get to the finish line.

So in similar fashion, the portable housing overlay would do the exact same thing.

If I meet the parameters of that overlay, then I don't have to do all these other stops along the way.

And then it just makes it an expedited process and streamlines and moves through.

So that's my stab at it.

And that makes sense, Stacey, and I get that.

Is that where your meds captured it?

Correct.

Ideally, that would be the way this would work.

Right, so they're sort of, yeah, they're not intertwining at all.

If I could, and Supervisor Galloway did hit it, staff thought that this would be a good illustration since you just went through the process of how an overlay works.

Probably just my confusion, Doug.

Thank you.

This is helpful.

Thank you.

I'm just looking at my notes real fast.

I guess with the parking, the only other note I had here was with parking, and I know obviously that we already have parking

The developers are aware, we have more parking required right now than many oftentimes we actually do.

I'm interested in, well I thought your options were interesting about whether some people would be parking during the day and people coming in at night and parking and how that all plays out.

I just think that might be challenging, but I'm interested in that.

I thought Bea's idea of underground, of course, we all know underground is very expensive.

And in this area where we have rock, it often gets even more expensive.

Just a comment.

But with that, I'll stop and I see Jim has his hand up too.

Okay well I've been writing down things to ask as everybody else was speaking because it is very complicated and I guess the ground rule going in for me is that this is just day one of a long conversation or much more details required because for me and perhaps other people uncertainty raises great concern.

because if I don't know what's going to happen officially, then my imagination is not a happy place.

So let me run back to the top of my list here to make sure that I don't forget some things that were raised.

And thank you, Stacy, for answering the questions.

And there are still some things that I will push on a little bit more for you to think about going forward for another day.

And here we go.

Okay.

Right at the very beginning, Stacey, you mentioned preservation of housing in the purpose of this.

And so I want to just ask you to clarify for a minute, because preservation of existing working class and workman's neighborhoods, where people have lived in their small little workman's houses for generations,

Those are the highest risk to loss and there are thousands of them in the county.

So are you speaking of taking those existing houses into consideration or are you talking about numbers overall that would

So that initial goal is really the housing goal that's put into the comprehensive plan and the housing policy.

So this is to help people feel part of that goal, which is it will leave the preservation part out of this.

This is strictly for new housing at the moment.

We would have to do some work to see how

Okay, that's good step one.

Now let me zoom down here a little further.

So what we're looking at, it seems, is a transfer in the process change.

from a process where there is transparency all the way along to a process where information is provided to staff, staff has a checklist, and they decide without any other public process what is going to be allowed.

So getting from today to getting to that point is where it's going to be a lot of detail written down because

I don't, we have made the mistake in the past of putting staff in a position of making policy and that is not fair for them to have to do.

It's risky that they will then be accused of something.

So it's much more important for the board to be in the process in order to take the heat if something, if a decision is made, it's our responsibility to either challenge it, debate it, or defend it, whatever.

That's not something that's fair to put on staff people who are trying to implement something where there's

Lack of clarity in the checklist or the way it's going to be interpreted.

So when I hear things like a la carte menu for people to choose from, I want to know more about that.

This, I guess, is one example of how the individual topography and size and capability of an individual property is absolutely the core element to whether we succeed or not.

And I'm very concerned about an overlay that applies to every piece of dirt because there's great difference between the capability of one lot versus another to actually accomplish something and have a product where people would want to live.

I'm very concerned.

If you read through this presentation and it goes sort of in one sad direction, we end up with a whole lot of really substandard, crowded, no green space, no recreation space places.

And that is the worst outcome because we're saying, oh, you're lower income, so you have to live in this where their standards are radically different from what other people have.

I'm very, very concerned about that outcome.

I want to do everything I can to prevent that loss of accountability, loss of process, and just that we're giving away too much.

And our residents who live in these places are going to pay the cost for it.

Let me jump, so please write that down for further discussion.

Regarding the ACSA fees,

The service authority has built its budget upon the users who are benefiting from the expansion of service pay the cost.

And that is why there is a tap fee.

So if the board is making some thought about offsetting some of that cost for affordable units, the board is going to need to come up with the money.

It's not fair to dump that allocation on

the current water users.

And it took 25 or 30 years to get to the point of fairness that they have now.

So I think that keeping the ratepayers in mind is important for that future discussion.

Regarding the rebate, I'm very supportive of what we did accomplish at Brookdale, because until the Brookdale application came along, we had zero 60% AMI housing.

And with that one project, we picked up 96 units.

And because it had that public process that happened through the EDA and the board, I think it's going to be successful.

But it had requirements and performance standards, etc.

individually detailed for that process.

And I think that's very important.

Let me jump down to my next all-cap thing.

Well, Louden Plan is what came up next.

And absolutely, when we have the waiting list, the waiting list that immediately jumped to my mind is the one we always had for the voucher program.

and when the staff demand was detailed back 10 years ago that, oh, we can't manage this voucher list, it was dropped.

And I've thought unsuccessfully about that because I thought, how can we expect the people who have no place to live to be somehow managing to keep themselves on an ever-changing list?

And so I do understand the staff requirement that wouldn't be needed

But without the list and a functioning list and one where people are kept in the loop, the whole thing is doomed.

So I really put that as a very high priority to do that.

I still very much want to learn more about

Oh, the parking.

People raised the parking issue of two sides of that question.

When the downtown Crozet district was developed, we reduced the parking requirements by like 90%.

And that was too much.

It's created another disaster because the other reduction was based upon the plans that other communities have had where the communities come in and did some sort of PPP for structured parking.

That never happened.

So now we have people fighting for spaces and it's not a happy place, but we'll get through it.

But I want us to be aware that we have to be careful how we change things because not everyone will be able always to rely on mass transit for everything.

And my years in Boston, we used our vehicle, which we parked in a little ancient

elderly neighbor's yard you know for ten dollars a month.

We only used it a couple times a month but when we needed it you know to go visit grandma we had it and so I think that we have to be careful.

I'd like us to be careful about that.

I really think it's important that if we go forward with this change that it be based upon that density because it's the way to carry out

or eliminate or reduce the concern I just described about the lots that are not appropriate for the application.

So when I see a plan that says any lot that comes in, if they claim that they're going to do this, then they get all these changes.

And it's based on gross acreage.

That's just of great, great concern to me.

So if we're going to be predetermining what the site minimums are,

and I think just removing all those non-usable things right at the beginning is probably the simplest.

Because there may be some small cottage colony that is appropriate for a two or three acre site.

They have a growth being one.

But to say that you're going to have a mixed use thing on three acres when the old minimum was 100 acres, there was a reason why you had larger acreage so that you could actually have space to accomplish what your goal was.

I read very carefully about the Rio Point numbers and I will just weigh in that what I heard as the explanation made me even more confused because they have so many, by right,

numbers of units under the comp plan.

And then the proposal was that they would get 45% more based upon 34 units per acre, which is why I asked you this question.

Is my math wrong about this?

So I think the way it was described the first time made perfect sense with the way we were told to understand it.

And I think Ned is right, that 1,400 units on a place would be something completely different in character to what we have so far.

It's a pretty big leap all at once.

Let me jump down here.

So we talked about that.

OK, I'm sorry to be, I have to go over my notes here.

And clarifying the additional units, the way they're going to be done, the sliding scale,

really need more information about all those things.

I think one size fits all is a real problem for us with this going forward because it's not simple for you or for us.

My understanding under the current proposal is that the BOS would not be included in application by applications to be staff only.

So that's where that checklist and our deliberation over the next year or something is going to be incredibly important.

That's going to be a real leap of faith for our citizens because we've been working toward more participation and inclusion and transparency for 25 years.

And this is now a completely different approach.

So I will be interested in how their response is.

Alright, almost there, almost there, almost there.

Okay, did that already.

Alright, any other supervisors have any comments right now?

Alright, I'm going to go ahead and make mine.

Yes, I just had another question, but if you want to go with your comments first, then... Go ahead.

Okay.

Getting back to Supervisor Galloway's question regarding Rio Point, if that did require, or if 1,300 units were allowed, or let's say even 1,000 units,

That would necessitate smaller units or higher units, is that correct?

Correct.

And then the other question is, I didn't understand, and Supervisor Mallek maybe you want to clarify for me, you mentioned that you didn't want this to apply to

If someone has a small lot like a quarter acre or something like that, how would this apply?

I really wasn't quite sure what you were talking about, about a cottage home and just not applying to the cottage home unless you were talking about a small home on a large piece of property.

Is that what you were talking about?

All right.

So I was speaking about the fact that a lot to be developed under this new plan would need to have sufficient acreage to do the job.

And that there may be some very small pieces of property that could be done sort of under the old fashioned way, but would not be appropriate.

with their various site deficiencies, et cetera, to accomplish larger numbers.

And that's why the one size fits all is of great concern to me.

Thank you.

All right.

Dr. Pethi, I think, you know, you've gotten pretty good comments from all the supervisors.

I'll try to avoid repetition.

Form-based code may be a good example for comparison, but form-based code is limited to a specific area within a single development area.

Whereas what we're talking about here appears to be an affordable housing overlay that would apply throughout all of the development areas.

That raises some great concerns in my mind of moving from an open-ended shall as opposed to the board having an opportunity to review these applications.

I would submit that perhaps more in line with what we've been doing with our home stays,

where everything has had to come through the board, but over time we've been able to evaluate these and basically there are some.

For example, the 125-foot setback being the only issue goes more towards the consent agenda.

I'm very concerned right now about a grant of a shall without board oversight for something as major as something like this.

Having said that, I do support an affordable housing overlay as well as, at this point, both of the two questions.

I'm open to them.

For our community, it's very important to realize that with our plan of 5% of a development area and 95% is a non-development area, there will come a point in time as our population numbers increase and our density increases.

And already we're at the point where we either have to fill in more

build up higher or we have to expand the development area.

So it is important for community members to understand we have to look at ways to try and achieve all of our objectives, which includes as long as possible limiting the amount of the development area.

I'm also confused as some of the other supervisors are with regard to exactly what the count would have been at Rio Point.

I think we've largely spoken of net density rather than gross density in most of our calculations, so I would continue to push more towards that.

With regard to parking, I appreciate that in our area, underground parking is very expensive.

Not quite as expensive would be ground level parking with the building built above it, although I recognize that may increase construction costs as well as you may have to go from wood more to steel and concrete and things like that.

but I'm very concerned about reducing the parking because we do not have a comprehensive transportation system that can get everyone throughout the community everywhere they need to go and I know many people in my community in my district and I'm sure in every district where the residents live in multi-family developments i.e.

apartment complexes where parking is already a problem and so anything that we do that makes that even more complicated for them

ultimately is just going to lead to greater frustration and I suspect anger and we don't need that.

So I'm concerned about actions that would make parking in these multifamily areas or high density areas even more complex.

I thoroughly agree with the other comments that you've heard.

Supervisor Mallek, for example, in terms of ensuring that we have green spaces.

What we don't want is to make this so densely populated it looks like the urban renewal, which we all know was a failure from

years past, and we basically have a modern version of what ends up being a slum.

So I am in favor of it.

I very much support, as you know from my comments, a graduated scale of benefits.

And with regard to the ACSA hookups, perhaps we may not be able to afford the full amount, but a partial amount.

And in that regard, affordable housing is not just new housing, it's existing housing.

And we know that in particular in the Jack Jouett district,

I would like to see us come up with a way to help those residents who are not hooked up to water and sewer have an opportunity to do that through our affordable housing plan.

So I thank you, I thank you and everyone who's worked on this.

Supervisor Andrews, I see your hand up again.

I don't want to get into any specific details.

I just want to ask the question, as we look at a menu, is it possible, is it defeating the purpose to work it so that we have certain things on the menu that could be chosen, they could work,

and they don't require additional review, but still have the expectation that there are other things that are open under the special use permit process that would take people right back to where we are now, but would be there if there's some way in which the development could work, but it needs our approval.

Yeah, I'm going to take some questions and just in the interest of time, these can come back, I hope sooner rather than later, even if it's an email or some other fashion.

I do think, well, Greg, I have a question for Mr. Campner.

If we didn't have an overlay and we wanted to provide incentives to help stimulate affordable housing,

What are our mechanisms?

An application comes in front.

Are we limited to something like the economic development, what we've done with Southwood?

I mean, how would you go about the process of saying or advertising the developers, if you're allowed, that we're interested in providing some incentives for affordable housing?

Well, using Southwood as the example, we separated the two processes.

One was the

development of the performance agreement, but the other was the rezoning process, which was up to the board to decide that as well.

So that applicant does not have that absolute certainty that the rezoning that gets the density that makes the performance agreement viable.

We don't have that with that rezoning process.

some basic elements of incentive zoning can just be put into the ordinance and we've had that for forever and it has not been heavily used.

I think a more dynamic approach, something along with what you're all talking about today is and open to new ideas that come from the development community

Well, to build on that then, my biggest concern, just even if everybody today said, great, let's do this, the timing of it and how long it's going to take is a great concern to me because we're having applications come through on big pieces of property that are still targeting the old policy, not the new.

and we need to get them aspiring to the new policy now.

As soon as it develops, they're not going to come back and react.

So whatever we do, we need to be flexible enough to help this along.

And I'm dreadfully concerned that I was concerned about this incentive conversation taking till February, but with the timeline provided, it's going to be past the one year anniversary of what we voted on Albemarle on housing Albemarle.

In the meantime, I want developers coming forward saying, we'd like to aspire to your program, but we need some incentive help.

Let's have that conversation.

So I don't want just an overlay or whatever our plan waiting for us to finally say that's it, because in the meantime, we're losing the opportunity to get the affordable units into these rezones.

That's a huge concern of mine, and I hope it doesn't have to be addressed now, but I need to voice that.

I think to help you, if we go and we definitely want an overlay, that targeting some pilot areas like the small area plan, like we did with the small area plan, could be a way to get there.

Then the board could decide, yeah, we've got some places where the infrastructure's in place, the density can be supported, and our concerns would be lower there than in some other parts of the development area.

That could be a way to get the overlay and get to it faster than trying to think of the entire development area.

So I hope there'll be some response to that.

Ms.

Supervisor Mallek's point is spot on about the differences in these properties in the development area.

And I would ask staff to do the following.

One, I think the case study for Rio Point needs to be fleshed out so that we all understand it.

and I think you might as well take the last couple controversial ones and do case studies on those as well.

RST and Breezy Hill come to mind.

I would say take those three development applications, put it out on a written case study so that the board could go, okay, if an overlay exists with the current proposed incentives and those three applications move through, what would we have gotten?

And I think that would be very helpful to me anyway to understand the process,

but also the impacts that could have occurred with some three very specific examples.

So I hope that can come to us a lot sooner rather than later, but obviously reasonable time to make those case studies worthwhile.

trying to go quick.

But please, please understand that we're losing it.

We've got, you know, the Rio North CAC just got the presentation of the UVA Foundation's redevelopment, and they're not targeting this new housing policy.

And I'll have more to say about that at later dates, I'm sure.

But that

That's a target area for affordable housing.

It should be aspiring to more than what was presented in that particular meeting.

And if our incentive program needs to help them get there, then we need something at our disposal now to help that along.

All right, Dr. Pethia, I think you've got responses.

Everyone is supportive, but we've got questions.

And we'd like to get this moved along as quickly as possible.

Do you have any other questions for us?

Ms.

Filardo, Mr. Walker, anything else for us?

Have we been able to address the questions and give guidance?

Yes, thank you.

I do see Supervisor Malek has raised her hand again.

I was just going to inquire if there was sufficient feedback on the breadth of the waivers that were being offered for the site development side.

Did you learn it?

Yes, thank you.

This is all really helpful and it gives some good direction to go with.

At this time, we'll move on to item number 10.

Tax Exemption and Relief Programs, and Mr. Sumner, I believe, will be joining us.

I see him connecting now.

Hello, Mr. Sumner.

I believe you're taking the lead on this.

Mr. Sumner, Ms.

Hi, Chair Price.

Sorry about that.

Good afternoon.

Nelsie Burch, the county's CFO.

I will be just kicking this off and then I'll quickly turn it over to Jacob Sumner, who's our assistant CFO for Policy and Partnerships.

As you all might recall, at the board's request last December, we had brought forward our current tax exemption and relief programs that are offered by the county.

And we specifically described those that are available to us as granted through the state in providing that authority to us.

The board asked at that moment for additional analysis, and today the Department of Finance and Budget team will be going through this led by Jacob Sumner.

And the team is comprised of myself, Jacob, Jen Lin, who is our Chief of Revenue Administration, and Peter Lynch, who is our County Assessor.

On the next slide, I'll quickly talk through the agenda before I turn it over to Jacob.

What we tried to do is some cool color coding, because this can quickly get very confusing for the public or the board as we talk through this.

And so as we go through the current tax exemption programs that we offer, you'll see those in blue.

This is everything that we already do here in the county related to tax exemption and relief.

Then we'll go through some local options that are available to us.

Those will be in green, and those are what we are asking for the board's direction on.

And the staff has some recommendations that we've provided at the end.

So of those local options that we are discussing today with the board includes a real estate exemption for surviving spouses of persons killed in the line of duty,

This is for state and local officials, so this is not military.

These are people who are killed in the line of duty from the state and local perspective.

There's other options that we can do to modify our current real estate tax relief program for elderly and disabled, which we will go through that.

There's an option to provide an alternative tax rate on the personal property tax side for elderly and disabled.

This is an option that the county can pursue.

We do not currently provide this sort of relief on personal property.

The fourth one would be BPOL, which is our business professional and occupational license.

We will talk with the board and walk through what your authority is to that license fee and what changes or modifications could be made if the board so chose.

And then we'll leave it up for board discussion.

And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Jacob Sumner.

Thank you, Ms.

Mr. Sumner.

Thank you so much.

It's always a pleasure to be here talking before the board.

Chair Price, thank you so much for the introduction.

My name is Jacob Sumner.

I'm the Assistant CFO for Policy and Partnerships.

The next few slides, as Ms.

Birch mentioned, will be color coded in blue.

These are our current programs, the current real estate and personal property tax exemption and tax relief

programs that are currently available to our residents.

I'm going to start with the real estate tax relief for the elderly and disabled.

On each slide, there is a similar format where I'm going to go through the criteria, how the relief is calculated, and the amounts that are there for those that qualify.

So for the tax relief for the elderly and disabled, as I said, this is for the real estate.

The applicant must be 65 years old or is totally and permanently disabled.

They must be the title holder of the property.

And the property for which they're seeking the tax relief should not be used in a business.

There are some criteria to qualify for these programs based on total income, personal total income, and total net worth.

The guidelines for here is on the maximums on the net income standpoint is $69,452 and the net worth is, shall not exceed, $200,000.

This is a local option provided by state code and we will be discussing an opportunity for potential modification this later on.

But this is our current program.

The box at the bottom, the blue table at the bottom,

is our current tiering structure for how the relief is administered for those that qualify across the spectrum of income and net worth thresholds.

You can see that they range from 100% relief all the way to just 20% relief.

For reference, in calendar year 2021, we provided $1.2 million of relief as a part of this program.

The second program that I'd like to detail today is the Disabled Veterans Real Estate Tax Exemption Program.

For this program, the applicant must own the real property for the exemption, and they must occupy it as their principal residence.

The surviving spouse of a disabled veteran also qualifies for this exemption.

As part of the application process, we are asking the applicant to provide certain documentations

and to complete an affidavit certifying their eligibility.

This program is prescribed and required to be offered per state code.

As far as the amounts, the amounts of the exemption includes a full exemption of the home and any supporting structures plus an additional 10 acres.

Any acreage beyond those initial 10 are not eligible for the exemption under this program.

For perspective, in calendar year 2021, we had 162 exempt properties all under this category.

And that yielded about $580,000 exemption for real estate taxes.

The third program that we currently offer is the Surviving Spouses of Members of Armed Forces Killed in Action.

This too is a real estate tax exemption.

This is prescribed by state code and is required that we offer this per state code.

The applicant, like other opportunities, must own the property and they must occupy it as their principal residence.

And the surviving spouse should qualify so long as they do not remarry.

The exemption amount is slightly different than the programs.

On this one, the full exemption is up to the average assessed value of a single family residence.

If the value of that home is more than the average, then only the amount in excess of that average will be subject to the real property taxes.

Currently, within the county, we do not have any participants in this program at this time.

Shifting slightly to personal property, we do have a disabled veteran's personal property tax exemption.

The applicant for this program must have a service-connected permanent and total disability.

It is for the applicant's personal vehicle, and leased vehicles and business vehicles do not qualify under this program.

This program also is required by state code.

And for reference, there at the bottom we had about 169 exempt vehicles under this program in 2021.

I will note that the state code does say the full exemption is for one vehicle.

So if an applicant has multiple vehicles, it would only be for one vehicle.

The final current program that I'll go over today is the Personal Property Tax Relief Program.

This program is also required by state code and is administered very closely with the state.

And under this program, all individuals within the county automatically receive personal property tax relief for up to $20,000 worth of personal property tax value.

The percentage of the tax discount is calculated on an annual basis

and is based on the values of the vehicles registered within the county in relation to the amount that we receive by the state to offset the tax.

I will note that for any vehicle that is assessed at less than $1,000, there is 100% relief for that.

The discount is automatically applied into the personal property bills.

So our citizens don't have to do anything from an application standpoint.

This is automatically included as part of their personal property bill.

For reference, the 2021 personal property tax rate was 45%.

And from a dollar standpoint, we receive about $14.9 million annually from the state to help offset this program.

That was a quick review of the programs the county currently offers, and now a transition to some options that the board could consider and are available should the board wants to pursue them.

The first one, and I have a lot of materials on the slide, so I'm going to go over it and be glad to answer any questions when we come to the

to the discussion area around it.

But this first one is the surviving spouses of persons killed in the line of duty.

As Ms.

Burch mentioned, this is for state and local officials, and this is targeted for real estate.

The applicant for this program must be the surviving spouse of certain persons that are killed in the line of duty.

And that's defined as someone that is VRS or Virginia Retirement System eligible beneficiary.

This could be a state police officer, local law enforcement officer, sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, correctional officers, members of fire companies, fire departments, emergency medical services.

There's a list of

More of our public safety professions that are listed here that are considered VRS eligible.

They are under VRS eligible beneficiaries.

Under this program, the applicant must own the property for which the tax exemption is sought.

And the property must be the surviving spouse's principal residence.

The surviving spouse would be eligible

so long as they do not remarry.

Unlike some of the other options that we mentioned earlier, this one is a local option, so a state code gives the localities authority to implement this program, but it does take action at the local level.

Under this program, the amount of the exemption, the full exemption is up to the average assessed value of a single-family residence,

And any value, similar to different from the other programs, any value above that average assessed value would be subject to the real property taxes.

We did our best guess and did the best estimate of trying to identify what the magnitude of what this program would entail.

And right now, we would estimate there would probably be about 15 eligible properties under this program.

And based on the 2021 assessed values of the same family residence, we would estimate that the tax relief provided by this program would be about $45,000 to $55,000 in tax relief.

From an administration standpoint and implementation standpoint, we feel like it would be minimal cost into implementing this program, although it would require some system updates to be able to implement this program.

A second option for the board to consider is a modification to the current real estate tax relief for the elderly and disabled program.

I went over in one of the earlier slides what our current program is, and you can see on the blue chart, if you will, this is what our current structure looks like.

State code gives localities the option to define the metrics on income and the financial network.

So that's where localities have the decision making authority and can modify this program should they choose.

The box in green, the one in the middle of the page, is an alternative to the current program.

This alternative and modification to the current program would increase relief for those with lower asset values.

And you'll notice on the income threshold side,

We're suggesting to increase the income threshold to match the AMI that is at $75,100.

That would increase those that would be eligible from an income standpoint.

Also, I want to bring to light that we are simplifying.

This program must simplify the brackets, the percentage brackets for the program from going from a nine bracket, nine tiered structure,

simplifying it down to only three.

Hopefully it'll be easier to communicate and to implement.

From an analysis on the financial side, increasing the income level and expanding the asset threshold to be $200,000 across all three income tiers would increase approximately $100,000

of tax relief to our citizens.

From the administration side, there is some minimal cost that would be associated with this, mainly on the system side.

This is a program that is currently underway, but it would just take some modification to consolidate some of those asset structures and income thresholds so we could accommodate that program or that modification.

This slide on the screen is a snapshot of other localities and their current tax relief for the elderly and disabled programs.

I tried to highlight at the bottom of this chart where the county lands as regards to our current program, as well as the alternative should the board decide to pursue the alternates.

Terrace structure.

So there's from a standpoint from a maximum and minimum relief, the county is about in the middle of the select localities that we've chosen here.

A third option for the board to consider is on the personal property side.

So now shifting away from real estate towards personal property,

is the alternative personal property tax rate for the elderly and disabled.

State code gives localities the option to offer an alternative personal property tax rate.

It's not necessarily defined as a program, but an alternative rate.

So we would still have a personal property rate, but this would be a second personal property rate, an alternative personal property rate for those that qualify under the section.

The applicant under the section would need to be 65 years old.

or totally impermanently disabled, and there are income and financial net worth thresholds.

Total net income would need to be less than $30,000, and net financial worth could not exceed $75,000.

I will say those caps and those thresholds are prescribed in state code.

Unlike some of the other programs, there are maximums on this alternative rate.

From an analysis standpoint, we estimate that approximately 500 vehicles would be eligible for this program and assuming a zero dollar, zero percent tax rate, which would be the maximum, we would estimate that would be approximately a little over $56,000 in tax relief.

Now, this program does require an application process, so there would be additional

applications that would need to be reviewed, additional processing time to accommodate those additional applications, and this would require some additional considerations regarding our systems.

We would have to have system updates to be able to accommodate this, but also because of the timing and when these applications are due,

It would create a workload challenge that the staff would have to work through as far as processing these applications.

So that's just more for awareness on the implementation of this option.

The final option or the final option for consideration today that we wanted to bring forth to the board is regarding our BPOL fee structure.

As you know the business professional occupational license fee structure is broken down into basically two metrics and localities and the county has opportunity to adjust these two metrics.

Two metrics are gross receipts and the thresholds on that that we have there on the gross receipts and then the classification rates.

So as the board is considering different options, as we were talking about tax relief and tax exemption, this is one that affects the business community.

Although there are other options and other opportunities for us to engage with the business community outside of the fee structure that's presented.

But in full transparency, as part of our work session today, this is another option that is out there that the board could consider.

With that, this is a work session.

We are looking for some feedback from the board, some direction from the board.

And the question we have for today is, is the board interested in implementing any of these pension tax relief or tax exemption programs?

From a staff perspective, we are seeking the board's direction to move forward with implementing really the first two, the real estate exemption for the surviving spouses of persons going on duty,

and the modification that was presented for the real estate tax relief for the elderly and disabled.

Thank you, Mr. Sumner.

All right, Board, we'll go through our rotation.

Yes, I have no issues and I'm in support of Numbers 1 and 2.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Price.

And then

I just have one question on the recategorization, if you can go back to that slide just to make it easier.

The one that you upped to 75 I think was the cap.

Out of curiosity, when you considered moving it from 69.4 to 75.1, was there any conversation about the two ranges in the middle moving up some, like 30 to 35 or 50 to 55?

Seems like we're letting some folks in, but 69 to 75 looks like a modest adjustment based on, I mean, that seems fair.

I just didn't know if any conversation happened at those other two categories to kind of broaden the range.

That's a great question, Ambassador Gallaway.

Absolutely good question.

By adjusting the income thresholds, we're actually looking to tie those into some of our housing metrics.

So that was how we arrived at the $75,000 a number.

And as our economy changes and that threshold changes over time, if we were to peg this program to that metric, this would allow the program to grow.

in conjunction with the same values.

Yeah, I guess, I mean, not a big deal.

This is not a, it's just a food for thought that if people were zero to 30 five years ago, it's probably zero to 35 now, or I mean, whatever the math is.

It seems like

since we're adjusting the top end, maybe those two ranges in the middle, but I'll leave that for you guys to discuss.

The administrative costs that are suggested in all of these, I presume, and I don't know, Nelsie, if this is for you or maybe even the county executive, but we talk about business process optimization in our budget each year, and we've been doing a lot of retooling or repurposing of positions.

Has that conversation had it?

Like, well, if the administrative burden increased to implement these programs, it can be offset because through efficiency efforts, we could repurpose staff that we have now into handling this administration because the administration they were prior doing, I don't know if that was found in payroll.

I mean, there's plenty of areas.

I don't know if you thought like, oh, this would cost us two FTEs, but we have these two FTEs moving over because they know

Yeah, we are constantly having those conversations internally.

And I've talked to Jen Lin, who oversees this group, about some efficiencies we could gain as we move towards better online customer portals, which is an area that we are pursuing.

As part of the core systems modernization, the interaction with people being able to pay their bills differently and interacting

Electronically is something that we're moving towards.

Part of the challenge with these is that there's a validation.

And so it still takes that human interaction to verify that the information that's being presented is correct.

But we already have an existing program, particularly for the elderly and disabled for real estate.

So modifying the tiers within that,

That doesn't change anything.

The new program for personal property is where you start to see some tension because it's a brand new program that is going to have more participants than the real estate side.

So there is that tipping point because you still have to verify and validate.

At this point in time, we do not have a system that can do that work of validation for us.

But we will constantly look at the

the technology and innovation that's available, particularly to local governments who have to process these and see if there's some opportunities in the future that we can pursue as we go through the core systems modernization.

But to answer your specific question, yes, we are constantly looking at how will the core system modernization, upgrading all of our systems and the business process optimization, looking at all of our business processes, how does that make us become more efficient and also

How are we able to concentrate on things that we may not have been able to concentrate in the past?

Because we've been so focused on the manual process.

And those are all coming to head at the same time.

So it doesn't necessarily generate the efficiencies that you would hope it would generate as we look at this.

But that's the work that we're doing with the county executive's office, Christy Shifflett and her team in the planning and strategic performance and strategic planning division there.

That is the work.

Very good.

Thank you for that.

So, I mean, I'm supportive of all the first three bullet points up top.

Now, for the BPOL, this is one that we're not yet ready to recommend the board move on that.

The costs can get pretty hefty, and we need to, you know, Jacob alluded to this, we need to have a different probably conversation about business license, business structure as we move forward, maybe in some of our strategic planning efforts.

But that one we are not recommending moving forward.

We wanted to let the board know, however, the authority that you have.

So you have a lot of authority within that.

If you could go to that slide, I can just talk through this really quickly because I think it's important to note.

Those thresholds, you see the gross receipts less than 25, 25 to 100 and over 100.

The board has the authority to set that at whatever rate you want to set that at.

There's a cost to that, but you have that authority.

Along with all of those classifications that you see on the bottom right, the 0.20 cents and 0.58 cents, the board has the authority to set those.

So you can quickly go down a road where we are unsure if we would be strategic at this point in time with changes within those.

without a bigger conversation about business taxes, business licenses, and what the board might want to do.

And quite frankly, this is one that is always in front of the General Assembly that there might be a change.

This year, there was legislation that was out there.

And so this could change from a state perspective.

But at this point in time, staff didn't recommend pursuing this without a bigger conversation about that.

Yep.

Thank you very much for that.

Cleared that up in my brain.

So I'm supportive of staff's recommendation here.

Thank you.

Supervisor Andrews.

I'm also supportive of these.

I share Supervisor Galloway's concern about looking particularly with the real estate tax relief that there be some recognition of inflation, if you will, and that's not necessarily baked in, but at this time, since we're looking at it, we should look at how long this has been there and what it means today.

I wouldn't have said the same thing about the BPOL because I think those thresholds are established for a different reason about the viability of the business and not tied the same way.

But for these two, for the real estate tax relief, that makes sense.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, I am supportive of what the staff is recommending.

And additionally, I'm happy for staff to look at those thresholds and take a look at that.

I also would very much like at some point to get back to the BPOL, but I recognize timing is important when we get to it, because we've certainly talked about BPOL for many, many years at this point off and on.

One question, though, when we're talking about the system's updates,

And maybe I missed it, but we're getting ready to start budget cycle.

Are we talking about getting this done, these systems updates, and getting this done for this coming budget?

Sure, Supervisor McKeel, what you will see in the county executive's budget that comes out next week, so I don't want to give too much away, you will see how we're planning the funding and the systems update.

So that is forthcoming in the budget recommendation.

Okay, great.

Yeah, that's good to know.

Okay, that's great.

And I guess that's it.

That's all you needed from me, I believe.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I will start by saying I definitely support these, the two bullets at the bottom of the slide here, but I have a couple of questions, only a couple this time.

Back to the beginning.

The load of state and local, not military.

That is only for people who are in the state system and I thought from an original citizen inquiry earlier this year that it also included our volunteer fire people killed in the line of duty who were reached eligibility officially through the state.

Absolutely, I can address that one.

Yes, that does cover the voluntary power companies.

Great, thank you.

I'm so glad to see the continued focus on the exemption for home and tent acres.

I don't know if that's state law or not, but I'm so glad we have it because without it, it would be a disaster.

I'm also glad to see the increase in the budget for the program.

It was about $700,000 six years ago, so I'm very glad that we have had participants

that have caused this to go up.

One of the biggest problems over the years has been getting people who should and deserve to be in this program to actually apply.

And I carried the forms around with me in my car and still have a few, but giving them to people in churches and neighborhoods and whatever because people were so reluctant to share their information.

and I think it came to mind when you mentioned about the human touch, the human validation that is needed for these, that human validation is what gives our citizens the comfort and I think that they can participate and as I've said to many of them at the doorstep, you worked your whole life for us, now it's our turn to help you and changing these thresholds to help people who are on the margin and have been for years is really

Great, I'm zooming down to another question.

There was one more question.

Oh, the personal property tax program.

Is it possible to have some of the validation information be part of their application?

In other words, is there state information available on vehicles that a vehicle owner could easily access and therefore relieve the county staff of doing some of that

That work.

And that's all I have.

All right, thank you.

As with the other supervisors, I fully support what county is recommending here.

I do, however, have some additional comments and I will go through them now.

Slide one, the note at the bottom, we're not going to talk about mental relief because we don't have legal authority to provide that the same way we do for real estate ownership.

I accept that.

However, I would ask that the board

Consider putting that on our legislative proposals for next year to seek authority to be able to provide tax relief for tenants as well as property owners.

We're in an era where housing costs are so high that more and more people are forced into rental.

And I think as a matter of equity, we should seek to be able to provide some sort of a comparable relief.

for those who are tenants.

But again, we're not doing that today.

Slide four, with regard to the benefits for a disabled vet's surviving spouse, I understand that the reason that the not remarry language is in there because we are thinking about a family that needs this support because they've lost the wage earner.

However, I have a real problem having an absolute ban on remarriage.

What that is basically doing is forcing older people into a life alone.

And there are legal consequences that may come from living with someone and not being married.

If the applicant, I'll use the word applicant and spouse of the applicant here, if either the applicant or the other individual who's not married, they're living together, get sick, that partner doesn't have any legal authority

to make health care decisions involving that individual.

And I think it's wrong for government to impose that type of restriction.

For the military, they have something called Survivor Benefit Program, where if a service member who's retired dies, they can basically buy insurance.

for their surviving spouse so they can get a percentage up to 55% of their retirement income.

And the surviving spouse cannot remarry or will lose that benefit unless they remarry after age 55.

I would ask that we look to do something comparable, perhaps put in say age 65, that the applicant and the spouse must each be at least 65.

What that's doing is avoiding a situation where the surviving spouse gets a tax benefit and then remarries and no longer really needs the benefit.

But I have a real problem.

preventing people from being able to remarry.

And if state law does not allow us to do that, then I would ask that we add that to our legislative agenda, because loneliness in senior age is a very serious mental health and other issue for people.

I would also ask that we add in both for slide four and slide five, I really like what's in slide five, that the tax relief for real estate only covers the average cost of residents in the county.

because while I do support us trying to help the most vulnerable in this instance, our senior citizens, I have a problem with there being an unlimited benefit based upon the value of the house.

So we could have seniors in very, very expensive properties who are receiving, I think, a benefit beyond what the county should be providing.

I think we have an obligation to help people have affordable housing, but not necessarily a specific house.

So I would encourage that we put the average

as a limitation on each of those.

On slide six, I have a little bit of a problem with the exclusion of leased vehicles.

To me, leasing a vehicle as opposed to owning it is comparable to renting housing as opposed to purchasing it.

And I think that we should look to have a comparable benefit for those who may lease a vehicle rather than just those who own it.

And again, if state law doesn't allow us to do that, then I think that we should look into that.

Slide 8, my same comment there with regard to the remarriage.

I think age, I would propose for consideration, age 65 for the applicant and the spouse, you no longer lose that benefit.

Slide 9, I totally agree with Supervisor Galloway that the category should be increased to 0 to 35,000, 35 to 55,000.

and 55,000 to 75,000, so you spread out that benefit across all of those categories.

Slide 11, I appreciate that we simply can't increase the assets, or at least I understand from the presentation, we cannot increase the income and assets because of state law limitations.

That's unfortunate.

In slide 12, I definitely support when the time is appropriate that we look at modifications to the BPOL tax, and I would

offer that we should look at both gross receipts and net income because not all businesses are equal in terms of their overhead expenses.

But without all those being said, I totally support the recommendation of the staff today for those things that we are voting on.

Do any other supervisors have any other comments?

So a question regarding the tax relief for tenants.

Is there any state option or do we have the option under state authority that a landlord who receives a

Tax Relief should pass that along to their tenant because I can see a lot of people just saying thank you very much and keeping the rents the same so I have no idea if that's even an option and I was confused actually and I'll just go back

I was confused by some of the slides and Supervisor Price's changes, so maybe I'll get those from her separately and try to catch up.

Thank you.

Supervisor Malek, my regard to rental relief would probably be something in the nature of a rebate to simplify the process, although I defer to those who may be able to calculate it.

That if you have a tenant in, let's say, an apartment complex,

who would qualify for some sort of a tax relief were they to own the property rather than to rent the property that there might be something like a rebate that could come to them from the county.

I leave the details to those who can best figure it out.

We don't have the legal authority right now, but I, again, as a matter of equity, I have a real problem with providing a relief only to those who own property as opposed to those who may be renting.

particularly in an era where more and more people are forced into a tenancy rather than an ownership.

But again we don't have the authority so I would ask that we put that on our legislative proposal for next year.

It did answer my question and I guess the other dilemma that we will need to discuss is

The reality that taking tax money from one who may be just on one side of the margin and giving it to another who's on the other side of the margin is a very difficult thing to figure out, because by tax increases to cover these, we will be creating

Thank you.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley?

Yes, thank you very much.

I'm not so sure regarding the tenants.

which are what we're thinking of doing and we want to be able to provide relief.

There might be a different way to do it.

What I'm afraid of is if the landlords, they get this relief and they may just jack up the price of the rental unit for certain people, I worry about that.

So basically unintended consequences of doing something like this, that's what

My concern is the other thing regarding, I mean, I think we need to see the legislative issues you're proposing, whether or not that would go anywhere.

I don't know.

I do know that the personal property tax, we're doing that at a later point because of the fact that we don't have the staff to be able to do that at this time.

So I think a slow and go approach regarding this to make sure that we, you know, cross our T's, dot our I's to make sure that these proposals will work and that we're not

You know, they are viable, frankly.

I don't know about the leasing of the cars because you're just basically, you're renting the car.

You don't really own it.

Well, you own it for the period of time you have it.

It's not like, and you turn it in after a certain amount of time, usually two years, three years, four years, you turn it back in.

So that I'm not as

You know, I don't understand the reasoning there, but you know, that's okay.

We'll look at that.

And if that goes under legislation, okay.

I don't know if it has to or not, but those are my two cents.

Thank you.

Unless it's, I haven't been in the new car business for a little while, but when you lease a car in Virginia, you pay the full sales tax on the full price of the car up front.

So you don't pay the tax on the portion.

So if you rent at least a $30,000 car, you're renting half of it if you want to think of it that way.

But you're paying the upfront sales tax on the $30,000.

Then your property tax gets billed to the person you leased from because they are the owner who turns around and charges it to you.

So that's where if you could get out of paying property taxes through leasing vehicles, there'd be a lot more people leasing vehicles in Virginia.

So leasing a car is not a way to avoid the tax burden, whether you finance or pay cash.

Any other comments, supervisors?

Thank you.

And again, I think I recognize, we all do, I think that there were only two things that really you were asking for us on today.

And I think you've got consensus on those.

Yeah, and a couple things, if I may, we will be having as part of the budget work sessions, a conversation about housing programming, much of the conversation that you all were just embarking on and talking about

some of the relief programs that we've currently funded through ARPA, through CARES, what's available to us, etc.

So that will be a coordinated conversation that we'll have with our housing partners with the board during the budget work session.

What I did have two takeaways, I think, but I want to make sure that I take away the right things.

The board is interested in us looking at the thresholds for our modification of the real estate tax exemption for elderly and disabled on those lower thresholds.

What we can do from a staff perspective is go back and run some analysis.

and see how that changes the impact to our budget.

I don't know that it will do it greatly, but I also think we need to try to tie it to something so that grows proportionately.

And so we'll have to go back and figure that out.

And so my team and I will come back to the board as needed.

I think we can do it administratively, but we'll keep the board

in the loop about that, because I know we wanted to do this more quickly.

But we'll make sure to package all of that, so the board is fully aware of what might need to happen.

And there was a second one that I wanted to ask Jen.

I don't want to put her on the spot, but she might know this.

Supervisor Price, you had asked about whether or not we could, I think it was, or maybe it was Ms.

Mallek,

Whether we could tie some of the, for the exemption program that we currently have for elderly and disabled, it doesn't look like the other ones where you are basing it on the average home value, right?

You can't get an exemption more than the average home value.

I can jump in.

And I believe supervisor Price was referring to an exemption because it's based on the entire

Home, and Ten Acres and not on the average value as a limit.

The veterans, the section of the state code that deals with the veterans exemption is explicitly the entire value while the other two programs, which came out later, and my guess is that they figured out that they

They didn't want to give as much money away in this program or provide as much relief.

And that's why they came up with the average value as being the maximum.

So it is in the state code and it would have to be a legislative agenda for that to change.

Also, it's in the code for all three sections that the spouse must pay for in the area.

You're welcome.

Uh, Supervisor Mallek?

I think those recent changes were constitutional amendments, which probably makes it, I mean, someone officially, Greg or somebody will have to make sure I'm right about that.

But I think that every time there's been a big election, they put forth one of these things to get out the vote.

And I think these, these recent amendments two and four and six years ago were all constitutional amendments.

So someone else can check that out.

All right.

Again, those were just editorial comments of mine on sort of a fairness, but we're limited in what we can do.

Anything else, Ms.

No, thank you so much for the work session today.

Yes we do.

I move that the board go into a closed meeting pursuant to section 2.2-3711A of the Code of Virginia under subsection 1 to discuss and consider the appointment of the county attorney and under subsection 7 to consult with legal counsel and briefings by staff members pertaining to actual litigation regarding zoning matters where consultation or briefing and open meeting

would adversely affect the negotiating or litigating posture of the board and under subsection 8 to consult with and be briefed by legal counsel regarding specific legal matters requiring legal advice relating to the first amendment and symbolic or expressive speech.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Mr. Gallaway?

Yes.

Mr. McKeel?

Aye.

Ms.

Mallek?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Mr. Price?

Mr. Andrews?

Yes.

All right, if the clerk will let us know when we are in our closed session.

Call the board back to order.

Yes, we do.

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

All right, we have a motion and a second if the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Gallaway?

Yes.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Miller?

Yes.

Ms.

Ms.

Yes.

And thank you.

Do we have any motions coming out of the closed meeting?

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second if the clerk will call the roll.

Ms.

McAlway?

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Mallard?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Ms.

Price?

Aye.

Yes.

This brings us now to item number 13 from the County Executive.

Good evening, Chair Price and members of the board.

I am here to do the county executive's monthly report.

Thank you very much for the opportunity, the continued opportunity to do this.

We've got several items that we would like to make the board and the community aware of this evening.

Emily Kilroy will be assisting me with this presentation, Emily.

Thank you.

Last week, Chair Price and Supervisor McKeel attended a celebration for the Hatton Ferry.

which is a pulled ferry that crosses the James River between Albemarle and Buckingham Counties which will reopen this April after a generous donation from a local family, the Wrights, who are pictured here with two of our supervisors.

It's a good day.

Thank you.

Last month, the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and the University of Virginia hosted a community forum as part of the Regional Climate Action Work Together.

The event focused on how climate change will affect our community.

Attendees learned about specific challenges associated with extreme rainfall, heat waves, and seasonal changes from the perspectives of several public servants.

and about upcoming opportunities to participate in preparation for changes that we expect to see.

We had over 150 community members who attended this virtual event.

The roundtable participants included

Kakadimic of Albemarle County Social Services, Kim Biasioli, the Natural Resources Manager for Albemarle County, Dr. Matthew Meyer, who is an Assistant Professor and Medical Doctor at the University of Virginia, and Emily Pelosia, who is the Deputy Chief of Emergency Preparedness from the City of Charlottesville.

It's very impressive that we had over 150 community members who were at this event.

Board, we have several sidewalk projects that are underway.

Facilities and Environmental Services has two major sidewalk projects currently in construction in four locations around Albemarle County.

A five million dollar project spans three sites, East, Rio Road, Avon Street, and Route 250 East near Crozet.

An at-grade flashing crosswalk on Route 250 will provide a safe crossing to the Blue Ridge Shopping Center for the many residents north of this major commuter road.

A $3.16 million project on Ivy Road will provide a lengthy connection from the City of Charlottesville's network

to new sidewalk on the far west end of the road.

New sidewalks, curb and gutter painted crosswalks and ADA compliant ramps will be placed at all sites.

All projects began construction in October and will be completed by the end of the coming summer.

This picture sadly represents our officers' participation.

Albemarle County Police Department Motor Unit were some of the more than 100 motor units that were participating from across the United States last week in the Bridgewater College Officers Memorial Service in Harrisonburg.

Campus officers who lost their life were Officer John Painter and Campus Security Officer J.J.

Jefferson.

I would ask our organization and our community to keep the families of these fallen officers in your thoughts as well as Bridgewater College as they continue to work through this very tragic event.

There was a fire.

This is a picture from the scene.

There was a fire last week at a restaurant at Pantops.

This was in the dinner hour rush hour traffic time frame.

The first unit was on scene in five minutes, which made all of the difference in minimizing the damage to the restaurant from the fire, which did begin in the kitchen.

So I salute our first responders who were there and on the scene quick.

And again, minutes matter.

And in this case, this commercial establishment I know will be back open sooner than they would have been had there been an undue delay.

Career Center becomes Virginia Career Works affiliate.

In January, Albemarle County Career Center announced new resources for area job seekers at a one-stop center in our county office building at 1600 5th Street Extension.

Albemarle County Career Center became an official affiliate of the Virginia Career Works Center in December of 2021.

With this designation and expansion comes more services from community partners that offer employment resources to those in our community and surrounding localities.

The redistricting process and AC 44, the comprehensive plan update process, are now both officially underway.

We have just launched a new virtual engagement hub where people can access project documents and resources as well as provide feedback.

The new platform found at EngageAlbemarle.org not only makes it easy for community members to stay informed and engaged, but has

a suite of analytics that allow staff to understand how people are hearing about our efforts so that we can work to refine our outreach.

The redistricting comment period runs through March the 4th, and the comp plan will be active for several years.

But work group applications are due February the 28th.

And again, that new platform, I want to make sure that I say this right, is engage.albemarle.org.

All right.

Online is not the only place to learn more about the comp plan.

Our Let's Talk engagement van has been popping up across the county at Northside, Crossroads Store, Wyatt Store, and Hydraulic Wash.

The schedule is available on the county calendar.

A kickoff virtual event is also scheduled for February the 25th at noon that will have Spanish translation available.

Our recruitment for the county's next director of diversity, equity, and inclusion is now actively underway with a posting that will be open through mid-March.

And so we will be providing periodic updates to the board on how this process is going, including a little bit more of an in-depth connection with key stakeholders.

And we'll be able to say a little bit more about that board at a later time.

I'm very pleased to share that we have just released our annual 2021 community report.

Print copies will be available next week, but it's now available online.

It's a great way to highlight some of the major projects, initiatives, and events from the past year.

2021 was an incredible year.

As we balanced ongoing COVID-19 pandemic response, vaccination needs, which will also be focusing on some of the more traditional government services and some of our accomplishments there as well.

This Friday, I will be joining several Board of Supervisor members and some key staff members that I will be bringing with me as part of the Chamber of Commerce first annual State of the Community, where leadership from the city, the university, and the county will reflect on this theme.

We expect that it will be a nice celebration of our community to talk about not just where we've been and what we've been through, but our vision for 2022 and beyond and looking for those opportunities to collaborate and share priorities for the coming year.

Board, this concludes my report.

And at this time, I would ask that I call on Trevor Henry, who will also make a really quick announcement to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Jeff.

Chair Price, members of the board, good evening.

Trevor Henry, assistant county executive.

Just a note and reminder that I, along with retired Colonel Letty Bien,

will be presenting down in Richmond next Wednesday morning between the hours of 8 and 9 a.m.

to the Virginia General Assembly's Military and Veterans Affairs Caucus.

It's an honor to be invited down there.

We're going to be talking about the Defense Affairs Committee work in this region, Rivanna Station, the work we have going on in the county, and really just a way to connect Richmond to what's happening up here, especially the work around Rivanna Station and its importance.

Excited to do that.

I'm trying to represent Albemarle County as best I can and carry the flag down there next week.

So just wanted to let the board know that I would be doing that and I'm excited about it.

If there's questions, you can reach out to me separately.

Thank you, Mr. Henry.

We'll go around.

Okay, having trouble with my neuter.

Thank you, Mr. Richardson.

Thank you, Supervisor Andrews.

No questions.

I met up with the group when they were at Crossroads looking at the working group and really happy to see them.

Supervisor McKeel.

Thank you, Jeff, for the great report.

I just have two questions or comments.

I assume that you will be putting some hard copies of the community report into our boxes at the County Office Building?

Emily's nodding her head yes, that's great.

Thank you very much.

And the other thing I wanted to ask was the climate action together with university and Albemarle and the city.

I did not, I was not able to attend that.

So all virtual public meetings are on the county's YouTube page.

I'll make sure that I get a copy of that over to you at the BOS email.

I just didn't even think about that.

I'm sorry.

I went to the website, of course, and didn't see it.

So that's great.

Thank you very much because I want to catch up on that.

Thanks.

Great report, Jeff.

Thank you, lots of good news again, which is great.

All right, thank you.

And Mr. Richardson, I concur with the other supervisors, a great report.

Mr. Henry, we know you'll do us proud and congratulations on being invited back.

I understand this is not your first time to be able to participate in that.

So obviously, you're a great representative and

U.N.

Colonel Ben will do a great job for us.

I know the sidewalk reports that you gave, Mr. Richardson, are really welcomed by our community.

I know the Avon Street area has been looking forward to some of these improvements, as I know the other areas are.

And it's just good for our county to see how much we actually do bring to improve their quality of life.

You know, with regard to the memorial for the two officers who were killed, I read recently 511 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty last year across America.

We really need to appreciate and respect those who wear their uniform and put their lives on the line for us all the time and pay our respects.

Chair, thank you so much.

All right, board, we're ready to move to item number 14 from the public.

I understand from the clerk's office we do not have anyone signed up this evening.

All right, Board, at this time, then we'll move to item number 15 of public hearing, SP 2021-00003, Caliber Collision.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Walker.

And Ms.

I just got into the meeting.

So let me pull everything up.

And I wasn't sure if the last item was finished yet.

And one is we were a little quick on that one this evening.

Good evening members of the board.

Thank you for your time tonight.

My name is Mariah Grayson I'm a senior planner in the planning division of the community development department of Albemarle County.

Tonight I'm going to be presenting special use permit request SP 2021-00003 Caliber Collision for your consideration.

The subject property for this application is located on Route 29 Seminole Trail at 1720 Seminole Trail on Tax Map Parcel 45-106.

The property is about 500 feet north of the intersection of Rio Road and Route 29.

Businesses and uses in this area are highly diverse and include retail and commercial businesses, restaurants, storage facilities,

Motor vehicle sales, rentals, and repairs, medical facilities, grocery stores, public facilities, and others.

The property's immediate neighbors are Storage Solution Center to the north and west and Jefferson Point to the south.

Albemarle Square Shopping Center zoned Plant Development Shopping Center, PDSC, is located across Route 29 Seminole Trail.

North of the property, about 300 feet, or a one minute walk, is Carter Myers Automotive, CMA is Colonial Nissan, and CMA is Volvo.

South of the property, at the intersection of Route 29's Middle Trail and Rail Road, about 750 feet from the property, is a recently approved auto dealership, NTB, National Tire and Battery, Enterprise Rented Car, and a buy-write application is currently under review by staff for the redevelopment of the neighboring Wendy's site into a discount tire.

So businesses in this area are forming a cluster of auto-oriented services.

The subject property is zoned highway commercial as seen in the bright red, as are the neighboring properties.

Further surrounding properties are generally zoned commercial, which is seen in the pink colors.

Permitted uses in the highway commercial zoning district are diverse, but however, the body shop use requires a special use permit.

The applicant is proposing to use the existing building on the property for a body shop use.

All work and repair activities for the body shop will occur within the enclosed building, which is a 9,200 square foot building.

Vehicles awaiting repair will be parked to the side and rear of the parcel behind a screening fence.

The proposal will require a site plan due to the changes to the parking area and areas in front of the building to make the parcel more consistent with some of the recommendations of the comprehensive plan, which in this case is the RIA 29 small area plan.

STAT found many positive aspects with the proposal.

However, the proposal

was inconsistent with the use and form recommendations of the Rio 29 small area plan, which again serves as the comprehensive plan and vision document for the local area.

Those differences were exchanged upon in the staff report, but I'll go quickly through them here.

The small area plan designates this property as a core area, which can be seen here in that light pink.

Shading.

Core areas are characterized by a highly urban and pedestrian friendly environment and that buildings are recommended to be three to six stories in height built close to the street and have windows on the ground story along the street and active first floor uses.

The Rio 29 Small Area Plan does not readily recommend auto service uses like body shops in the core but permits them by exception if they have minimal impacts on surrounding uses and if a certain building form is achieved.

Specifically, the plan recommends that these uses are part of mixed-use developments with auto-oriented uses located in the back of the property.

The proposal is not consistent with the form and use recommendations of the small area plan, so because of these inconsistencies, staff's recommendation was a recommendation of denial for the proposal.

A public hearing with the Planning Commission was conducted on December 7, 2021 for this proposal.

The Planning Commission was able to support and recommend approval of the special use permit with revised conditions.

Those revised conditions are provided here as well as in the transmittal summary to the board.

The revisions primarily work to swap the widths of the planting strip and shared use path that were based on the recommendations of the Rio 29 small area plan.

This switch was an acknowledgement of the area's topography and amount of impervious surfaces on the site.

The change will result in the planting strip having a 14 foot width instead of an 18 foot width and a shared use path being 8 feet in width instead of 14 feet.

And that concludes staff's presentation.

The board has the transmittal summary in the staff report.

So if you have any questions regarding information provided here in the report, I'd be happy to elaborate.

All right.

Thank you, Ms.

Gleason.

We'll go around our questions.

Yes.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Gleason, for that presentation.