Board of Supervisors Regular Second Meeting   7/20/2022

Welcome.

I'll call to order this July 20th 1 o'clock p.m.

of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.

The opportunities for the public to access and participate in the hybrid 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, Ms.

Cynthia Hudson, our Board Clerk, Claudette Borderson, and our Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis Morris, are also present.

Currently present at the dais are Supervisors Ann Mallek,

of the White Hall District, Supervisor Ned Gallaway of the Rio District, Supervisor Jim Andrews of the Samuel Miller District, and Supervisor Diantha McKeel of the Jack Jouett District along with myself, Supervisor Donna Price of the Scottsville District.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.

We will address her presence in just a few moments.

I would also like to introduce our Albemarle County police officers who are present here today.

Officer Angela Jamerson, Officer Josh Wright.

I really want to express my great appreciation to Albemarle County, to our first responders, and especially here today our law enforcement officers for the service that you provide.

Supervisor Bea LaPisto-Kirtley is not presently at the dais.

She has requested to participate remotely in accordance with applicable board rules of procedure enacted pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

She is unable to attend the meeting in person due to a medical condition.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley, we see you on the monitor.

All right, thank you.

And Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley is requesting to appear remotely.

So moved.

All right, we have a motion from Supervisor Malek and a second from Supervisor McKeel.

Without any further discussion,

Ms.

Mallek?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Ms.

Aye.

All right, thank you.

And I would like to just simply remind both myself and Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley if at any time she needs to step away to make sure that we annotate that so that the record will reflect any portions of the meeting for which you are absent.

At this time, we will move to item number two, which is the Pledge of Allegiance, and would ask those in attendance to stand as you are able and join us.

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

Thank you.

All right, board, we'll move to item number four, the adoption of the final agenda.

I need to pull my minutes.

All right.

They're the October 28th, 2020.

All right, so we have an amendment to the consent agenda to pull from 8.1, the minutes of October 21st and October 28th.

Anything else by any supervisor?

So moved.

All right, we have a motion by Supervisor McKeel and a second by Supervisor Mallek.

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Mallek?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Ms.

Thank you, board.

At this time, we will move to our next item, item number five, brief announcements by board members.

Alright, thank you.

Just a quick one that I note in the news that there was a new study, peer-reviewed study from Yale about average climate models that said that they've gotten extreme participation events wrong by a factor of two and that we're experiencing that and I hope everybody's staying safe and it's something that I think we're going to need to consider stormwater management issues and other things related to that at a future meeting.

Thank you.

Since this is our first gathering since the 4th of July, I just would like to report that the community rebuilding after COVID is alive and well in our

in our county.

The parades in Crozet, big crowds lining the entire two mile route and great crowds came to the park despite the fact that there were no fireworks.

And that was really reassuring to me that people came to see each other and to gather.

In Earliesville, our one mile route was also well attended.

Churches provided lunch and dessert to parade goers and marchers.

and there were floats of veterans representing Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines in our parade and we are recruiting Coast Guard members for next year so we want to have all those agencies covered.

I was fortunate to have a wonderful trip accompanied with Stacey Pethia to the High Growth Coalition meeting which focused on affordable housing and we both

I think she learned a lot.

She knew much more than I did, but I learned a lot for sure, and we will be bringing more information from there as well.

And also the 5th and 7th District BACO Summer Mini Conference talked about many, many county issues, but many counties in the 12 counties who were represented there

also had the same many issues going forward to the General Assembly so that was reassuring.

And the last bit of fun news actually, you may have heard of the Governor's case which is the 12 best wines produced by Virginia Wineries each year.

They're used for promotion of Virginia wines all around the world and this is the 40th year

that the Governor's Cup has been awarded and the Governor's case has been chosen.

And this year contains six wines out of 12 from the Monticello Wine Trail.

So I just wanted to use this moment to congratulate Michael Schaps's Chardonnay, the Trump Winery sparkling from the Scottsville District, Wisdom Oaks Meritage blend from the Sammy Miller District, Stinson and Pollock Vineyards Meritage from the White Hall District, and the sixth

which I always claim is Barbersville and the Rivanna district because the vines are in Albemarle.

Even though the winery is in orange, we claim the vines.

So that was all I have.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you, Chair Price.

I just, being this is our first official meeting since June on the 29th, we did appoint our county attorney, Mr. Steve Rosenberg, and he will be getting next week on the 27th.

He comes to us by way of the city of Stanton, previously their city manager.

And in the past, he served on the Office of the General Counsel at UVA.

So we're looking forward to welcoming him next Wednesday.

And we'll see him join us at the dais at our next meeting.

Thank you.

Yes, I have one thing to mention, but I just want to add.

You have some possibilities.

I just wanted to remind folks that as of this last Sunday, we now have a mental health crisis number to use, which is 988.

that is my understanding is it's active as of Sunday and so we would encourage people that are having a mental health crisis or even have a family member that's having a mental health crisis to use 988 and I will

Just let folks know that the ECC Department, our Emergency Communications Department, is running that and is in charge of that particular line.

But I know that we're all happy it's up and running.

Alright, thank you.

I have a couple of announcements.

First off, following up with Supervisor Malek's comments and also Supervisor Galloway's.

It's been a while since we've had a meeting.

I'm extremely appreciative of this board recognizing the work that county staff has done and approving a missed meeting in July to allow county staff to actually be able to have a vacation after two and a half years of the pandemic.

The parades in Scottsville and in Crozet really were superb.

I also had the opportunity last week to visit the Vanderland Recycling Center

over in Fluvanna County and I learned that 82% of what goes to the landfill actually is subject is eligible for recycling and they do a tremendous job there in separating out all of the stuff that can be recycled as opposed to simply going to the dump.

I've shared this information with senior leadership in

asking or looking for the Ivy Materials Utilization Center to be comparable.

But there are things I believe that we can do to reduce the amount of debris that is going to the dump as opposed to what is being recycled.

And I do hope that the county will be able to continue to work towards improving that and reducing the volume that we have to send to the dump.

It really was an incredible

In the next 10 days, we are looking at temperatures each day going over 90 degrees up to 100.

The last seven years have been the hottest on recorded history.

Climate change is real.

And I would ask everyone to be careful to do what you can to try and reduce the heat footprint that you are creating.

I know, you know, things that I do are draw my shades during the day and try to keep the temperature a little lower, avoid extra driving.

This is a tough time right now.

Fortunately, gas prices are going down a little bit, but in many areas of the country,

Their power grid is really subject to some extreme stress right now and I would just ask that we try to do what we can.

The other thing on the medical front, we're seeing yet another COVID surge in Europe right now.

There's no reason to believe it will not reach us in the United States and on top of that now we have monkey pox as a concern.

So it is important that we all remember to act as carefully for both our own health and those of our neighbors.

And that does mean try to avoid overcrowding in local areas.

And the final, but by far the least significant, I want to publicly express my deepest appreciation and gratitude to Ms.

Hudson for the work that she has performed since April 1st as our interim acting county attorney.

and it is only in the legal sense that she was interim or acting.

She stepped in and has taken full charge of all responsibilities and has provided exceptional legal guidance to us during this time of transition and my words are inadequate to express the appreciation that I know every member of this board and county staff as well as our community has for the work that you have done for us.

We are better for it and it has been a real pleasure to have you here with us.

Thank you, Ms.

Thank you, Chair Price, and thank you, Board.

Thank you.

All right, Board, at this time we'll move to our next item, which is item number six, Proclamations and Recognitions.

So moving on to item number seven, from the public, matters on the agenda but not listed for a public hearing or matters previously considered by the Board or matters that are pending before the Board.

We do have five individuals who have signed up in person.

We do not.

During the time set aside for matters on the agenda but not listed for public hearing, 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 hearings.

Individuals are allowed one opportunity of up to three minutes to speak at each Board meeting.

A sign-up sheet is managed by the Clerk's Office.

Up to 10 persons may speak during each matters from the public session.

Timekeeping is conducted through a timer and light system at the podium.

The green light will go on when you begin speaking, which begins your allotted time.

The yellow light indicates you have one minute to finish speaking.

The red light indicates your time has expired and you will be asked to end your comments.

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

When addressing the Board, state your name and if you live in Albemarle County, your Magisterial District.

Address comments directly to the Board as a whole.

Any written statements or other supporting material may be given to the Clerk.

For representing a group or organization, you may ask others present to raise their hands in recognition.

Speakers may not share any unused time with another speaker.

Back and forth debate is not permitted.

Do not speak from your seat or out of turn.

All right, thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Brian McKay, and I'm speaking on behalf of Earliesville Forest Homeowners Association, which is in the White Hall district, and we appreciate your letting us speak today.

We are directly affected by and object to the Kindred Farm Special Exemption for a Filled Dirt Operation.

Our objection is to the way that activity is being carried out.

As background, Earliesville Forest has a right-of-way, easement agreement with the Kindred family.

That was signed when the neighborhood was first developed.

The terms of that agreement are for a driveway access 15 feet wide

from a single-family home across Earliesville Forest land and entering Carriage Hill Drive, a residential street in our neighborhood.

In fact, the Kindricks use Carriage Hill Drive as their home address and have their mailbox at the end of that driveway, as does every other resident of Earliesville Forest.

That driveway crosses and defines the lots of three homeowners in our association.

It comes within several feet of one of those houses.

Again, this right-of-way is 15 feet wide, unpaved, and intended for use as a driveway to a home.

However, that driveway is now being used as access for the fill dirt operation requiring repeated trips by heavy dump trucks and is not adequate for that purpose.

That has seriously adverse effects, or serious adverse effects anyway, on the surrounding neighborhood, and even worse, for the three homeowners directly sharing the right of way.

The special exception already in use requires the Virginia Department of Transportation to approve access entrance onto the highway.

We wonder if that approval was ever received because the driveway actually does not enter a highway by the neighborhood streets that is Carriage Hill Drive.

To reach a highway, those dump trucks then have to drive through our neighborhood on unmarked streets that are not throughways.

These streets have no sidewalks and are used by neighborhood residents and their children for walking, cycling, and other enjoyments.

So we think those dump trucks have an adverse impact on public health, safety, and welfare.

We ask that you do not allow Kendrick Farm to use the Carriage Hill right-of-way across our land and then through our neighborhood streets as access for the heavy trucks for their fill dirt operation.

And finally, we just in the last hour sent you an email with a photograph taken from the yard of Ms.

Pretzschneider, who is here today, showing you what it looks like with a heavy truck going across this access.

If you could look at that on your email, please.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Tim Kendrick and I reside in the White Hall District.

Later today, you will consider a request from me to waive the requirements of Zoning Ordinance 15.1.28 regarding Clean Earthsville.

I believe my comments provided to the Board outline the specifics of the project

but I would just like to add these brief comments.

I am currently working under a multi-year federally funded environmental quality incentive program to improve the overall agricultural production of a 254 acre farm which has been in my family since the 1730s.

Additionally, the contract provides added protection to the natural resources on and surrounding the farm.

This is a bonafide agricultural project under the United States Department of Agricultural

and Natural Resource Conservation Service.

It has been recognized as an agricultural use by county staff, the county attorney's office and the Albemarle Conservation Easement Authority who went on the record that the proposed activities are allowed under the conservation easement, that they have no concern and it seems like a worthy project.

Albemarle County Farm Bureau has visited this site and determined without question this is an agricultural project.

Chapter 18, Section 31.5 states a zoning clearance shall be required in the following circumstances.

New use prior to establishing a new non-residential use, including those provided in subsection A6 and A7, or clean earth fill activity or inert waste activity

other than in agricultural use, but I have been required to get a Sony clearance.

The Virginia Right to Farm Act states that no locality shall enact an ordinance that will unreasonably restrict

or regulate farming in an agricultural district or classification unless such restrictions bear relationship to the health, safety, general welfare of its citizens which this legitimate agricultural use does not pose.

However, I have been held hostage for 12 months by this ordinance.

It also states no locality shall require an ordinance that a special exception be obtained for any productive agricultural activity, but I stand before you today asking for a special exception.

As you're aware, this ordinance was rushed through and approved with the contention of review, which has not occurred.

It's a proposed

Its purpose to protect agricultural land from becoming a dump site for construction waste while fully supported has now prevented a legitimate project to improve the agricultural land and protect the now three sources of the area.

For these reasons, I am asking that you approve this waiver and the entrance way has been approved by VDOT for use.

All right.

Good morning.

Just a moment, please.

I apologize.

We just want to make sure the clerk has an opportunity to turn the microphone on for you.

So just a second.

She'll do that in just a moment.

Mr. Morris, are you ready?

Can you get that started?

Okay, go ahead, please.

Ma'am, I'm sorry, we can't hear you very well.

Barbara West, 6319 Esmont Road, Keene, Virginia, Samuel Miller District.

Why do people decide to live in rural areas versus city life?

We choose rural life for peace and quiet, for serenity, for the beauty and complexity of nature.

We value peace and quiet to such an extent that we're willing to put up with inconveniences and, in Southern Albemarle, bad internet and no cellular.

Still, we remain for peace and quiet.

My own husband,

a Vietnam combat war veteran asks for nothing more in life than peace and quiet and quite frankly he has earned it.

Science dictates that for every species of plant or animal no matter how lowly that is allowed to go extinct is one step closer to the extinction of man.

Every living thing has a purpose and every living thing is important to our survival.

We understand this.

We are stewards of the land.

When poorly thought-out county proposals, nonstop development with increasing population density, cement in place of trees, encroach upon our good stewardship, our obligation and privilege to save the land and the living world within, we must protest and fight.

We are also fighting for the survival of the human race and we ask those in power to help us.

Rural agriculture zoning changed with a flick of a wrist to commercial in a pristine, wooded setting in a bad location for no other reason than you own the land.

It's absolutely unacceptable.

You've taken the easy way out, making lame justifications for this decision.

And all six of you opposed leaders have blindly gone along with this travesty.

We demand better.

And through our vote, we will get better if you don't wake up to what your constituents are telling you.

Thank you.

Okay, let me explain.

The handouts were from me, so I'm sorry about that confusion.

If you could just bring the microphone up so we could hear you better.

Thank you, ma'am.

That's better.

Okay, so the handouts were from me.

I'm sorry that you were distracted.

Barb's.

I'm Laurel Davis.

I live on Esmont Road in the Samuel Miller district and I want to address that decision same as Barb to put the what you call the convenience center there.

I'm so afraid of what this plan implies about you as a governing body

and the future of our county, our collective home place.

You have actively ignored the will of the people, certainly those of us most negatively impacted by this who just happen to live in a historically low income and majority African American corner of the county with a history of being told to accept the county's trash.

But you have also ignored the comprehensive plan, your guiding document.

You are but temporary guardians of this county.

And the comprehensive plan tells us that the number one reason people move here is for the natural beauty.

It goes on to say, natural resource protection is the county's highest priority.

There's no ambiguity about that.

The highest priority.

That includes trees, woodlands, animals, wild places.

And yet, Objective 7 of the Comprehensive Plan directs you to maintain or improve the visual quality of all of Albemarle County's roadways.

Yet you approved a plan that replaces mature oaks with black chain link fence, that replaces an understory of huckleberries with acres of non-permeable asphalt, more than seven lanes of roadway.

Does this improve my road?

Is this protecting natural resources and beauty?

So if you don't listen to the will of the people and you don't follow the guidance of the comprehensive plan, it begs the question, who or what are you in service to?

This plan was conceived more than a decade ago.

It is antiquated.

It is outdated.

It has led to the domination paradigm, which is what brought us, our species, to this treacherous moment in the first place.

And it ignores science.

We now know, or should know, that plastic recycling does not work.

That it is promoted by the plastic manufacturers, in fact.

If you want to truly reduce single-use plastic waste, we know of lots of ways that are far more effective.

If you want more people to recycle to reduce solid waste and make an effort to protect our planet, then people shouldn't have to go out of their way to do it.

Recycling bins should be everywhere people congregate.

If you want to help people who can't afford trash pickup, then give those elders or people without cars trash pickup vouchers.

This plan is a plan from the past and should have stayed there.

The taxpayers of this county deserve better, deserve a governing body that makes decisions based on current science.

that follows the guidance of the comprehensive plan.

I have one more sentence.

I implore you to reexamine this plan.

My name is Hal West.

I'm at 6319 Esmont Road in Keene, Samuel Miller District.

And I know that you've come quite a ways with your plan to put this Convenience Center, Transfer Center, Recycling Center, whichever you like to call it in Keene.

We want to remind you how dangerous that intersection is and you're making it worse with large, numerous large trucks going in and out.

Don't pass this off on VDOT to

not accept the blame for traffic accidents that occurred.

Many have occurred already and I think this is going to make it worse.

I don't see how you can justify spending millions of dollars or a million plus dollars in taxpayer money when smaller bins will suffice in any shopping center.

in Scottsville, behind the school, in Mill Creek, in any shopping center around.

I sent pictures, I think, to all the board members.

Small bins, five foot square bins or so, are all over Europe.

They're all over our country, too, in many housing developments, and in just about every shopping center that you

that you see in Europe.

We don't need this site placed where it's not needed.

You need to place it in large growth areas.

Look at what you do in the Mill Creek, Charlottesville and the Mill Creek area.

You need, like I say, the shopping center for simple drop-off, simple collection of recyclable goods there and use some common sense and

Save our environment, don't build it where it's really not needed.

And one other thing I'd like to say, I wish everyone would go to the flcc.net website and read

Reed from the doctors, the immunologists who have been ignored and really need to, people need to pay attention to them and research everything they can on COVID and the proper treatments.

not the vaccine push that everybody's been doing around the country and around the world.

And the mainstream media knows this wrong too.

All right.

We'll now move to item number eight, the consent agenda.

Are there any additional revisions other than the two that were previously noted?

So moved.

Alright, we have a motion by Supervisor Malek and I heard a second from Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.

Any other comments?

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Mallek?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Ms.

Aye.

We'll now move to item number nine, our first action item.

A request for housing fund support.

Yeah, we did have the two minutes that were pulled that were discussed earlier.

Oh, okay.

I just pulled them from approval.

I apologize.

Okay.

So I just didn't want to pass.

Okay, yeah, we'll do that at the end then.

Okay, that's fine.

We'll add that as our last item on the agenda.

Sure, that's okay.

So Ms.

Borgerson, if you'll help me remember it when we get to the end of the meeting, Supervisor McKeel wants to discuss her minutes.

All right, thank you.

No, that's fine.

All right, thank you.

Good afternoon, I'm Stacey Pethea, housing policy manager.

I see.

Is that better?

That's better.

That's great.

Sorry about that.

So I am here today to request funding support through the housing fund reserve for two projects that will increase and support affordable housing in Albemarle County.

We'll start with a background of housing funding over the last fiscal year and then move on to really looking at funding needs and I think you'll recognize the graphic when we get to it and then looking at funding activity in FY 2022 what has already been approved for housing affordable housing projects in FY 23 and then move on to the recommendations for funding discussed today.

So here is the housing office's favorite graphic, looking at the spectrum of housing needs within the county.

Moving from the most vulnerable category in blue, so that includes individuals and families experiencing homelessness, and moving all the way up to the least vulnerable households, and that would be the workforce housing category.

So those households earning up to 120% of area median income.

And just a reminder, our current area median income is $111,200 per year per household.

So just a review of how affordable housing projects are typically budgeted within the county.

We do some of that through the agency budget review team process which there's the application process beginning generally around September and those projects and programs are approved through the budget process for the following fiscal year.

This year we also had the American Rescue Plan Act funding.

That application process was done at about the same time as the agency budget review team process.

Those were also approved through adoption of the current fiscal year budget.

Then we also have the housing fund reserve.

and that was created in fiscal year 2019 and really to focus on phase one of Southwood redevelopment project as well as any housing initiatives that are one-time costs.

And those funding awards are approved by the Board of Supervisors on individual basis such as today.

Just to review the information that we presented during the April 20th board meeting, during the ABRT and ARPA processes, we received requests for more than $20 million in funding support.

In total, that funding request would have supported 445 affordable units through new construction, the preservation of more than 100 units of existing affordable housing, also provided support to homeless services programs and for shelter beds for victims of domestic violence.

So moving on to the Housing Fund Reserve.

During the April 20th board meeting, board members approved $1.29 million in FY22 funds through the Housing Fund Reserve.

And that money went to the Albemarle Housing Improvement Project to preserve 41 affordable units.

$625,000 went to the Piedmont Community Land Trust to create 12 permanently affordable new housing units.

and $250,000 was awarded to expand the county's current energy improvement program and that would extend that program for an additional 25 existing units.

And so overall in FY 2022, that funding added to the $3.6 million that the county dedicated to affordable housing projects and programs.

That $3.6 million helped create 256 new affordable rental units.

and 220 affordable owner-occupied units.

It supported 25 beds, shelter beds for victims of domestic violence, provided services for 122 individuals and families experiencing homelessness, and provided housing counseling services for more than 200 households.

So we were pretty active last year.

Also in April, or through the budget process,

that was adopted in April and May.

The board approved allocation of $548,870 through the agency budget review team.

That went to several different programs including homeless services, affordable home ownership opportunities through AHIPs to the preservation of those and to support affordable rental housing with Piedmont Housing Alliance.

with the ARPA reserve recommendations that the board approved, that was $2.7 million.

The bulk of that went to Premier Circle to help create 80 units of permanent supportive housing.

And you can see on both of these last two slides, those squares and each of the funding streams are color-coded to match that spectrum of housing needs you saw on the first slide.

So that brings us to why we are here today.

Throughout that process with the ABRT and the ARPA application processes, as I mentioned, the county received requests for more than $20 million in funding.

At that time in April when we requested the board approve funding through the housing fund for that $2.9 million, we mentioned there were two additional projects that should the board approve the addition of $3.1 million to the housing fund reserve through the budget, that we would come back with recommendations for two additional project funding.

That is why we're here today.

So the staff is requesting the board approve $3.3 million in funding.

$3 million of that will be given to Peabody Housing Alliance to support their Southwood apartment project.

And $306,000 will go to Habitat for Humanity to provide temporary rental assistance for 40 Southwood families that need to be relocated during the redevelopment process.

There are in your agenda packet as attachment A, there are several tables that really summarize the complete applications for all of these, but I will just go over them briefly here.

For Piedmont Housing Alliance, that $3 million will help support the construction of 121 affordable rental units in their Southwood apartment project.

That is located in Phase 1 of Southwood Project.

Those units will serve households with incomes between 30 and 60% of area median income.

The total project cost is $24.9 million and so the county's total contribution if the board approves the $3 million will be about 12% of the total project cost.

And that comes down to a per unit cost of about $25,000 per unit.

Looking at their funding stream, this $3 million really fills a crucial gap in project funding.

The bulk of their budget is coming from the low-income housing tax credit award that they received last year.

They're also receiving money from the National Housing Trust Fund and the Virginia Housing Trust Fund.

And they are also, the Office of Housing has awarded them eight project-based vouchers.

which equals approximately $500,000.

That will provide rental assistance to dedicated units for 15 years and that will help families with 30% if area median income or below actually live in those units.

It's also important to note that approximately

I think there's six additional units that will also serve homeless individuals and those will be treated as permanent supportive housing for a number of years as well.

There's no direct funding associated with that but I thought that was an important point to point out.

So this three million dollars really fills that gap between what you see here on their project funding streams and what is needed to make the project move forward.

For Habitat for Humanity, the request and recommended amount is $306,504.

Again, that will provide two years of rental assistance for 40 households who are in need of temporary rehousing while construction in phase two of the Southwood Reeve Development Project moves forward.

households served by this funding would have incomes between 50 and approximately 60% of area median income.

The total project cost to relocate the families is about $2 million.

And so this $300,000 would be about 15% of that total project cost.

The county cost per unit is about $7,600 per unit.

And Habitat has matching funds through private donations of approximately $799,000.

And that is all I have for our presentation.

All right.

Thank you, Dr. Peffio.

We will go through our order.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.

How's that?

That's good.

Thank you, Dr. Pethia.

Appreciate your presentation.

I thought it was very thorough and looks good.

Okay.

Yes, thank you, Dr. Patio.

Quick question on the relocation.

How is that managed?

You mentioned in slide 13, 66 households, but it also said the funding was for 40 households.

Correct.

So they have already relocated about 24, 25 households, or 26 households.

So there are 40 left that must be relocated for those first phases

the beginning construction activity in phase two.

Habitat is managing that process.

The intention is that once they are building, I believe they're building a condominium unit in phase one, in village one now, and those units will provide that temporary replacement housing.

So families that must move initially in phase two will move into those condominium units and this will help fill the gap that in

that they need to pay for their rent.

So they pay so much now and the rents will be higher when they move in just to help cover the cost of construction as you would expect.

Correct.

They should all remain affordable because Habitat is owning and managing that property.

But this is temporary housing for those families who intend to purchase units from Habitat once they are finished.

Correct.

Alright, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Two questions.

Can you describe the future as far as the timetable when we're investing in the construction of these affordable units?

that's for, you mentioned a term, there was a certain amount of uncertainty about how long they were going to be, that struck me as sounding uncertain about how long they would be affordable, so that's what I'm trying to nail down, is what happens at the end of the 15 years or whatever they come up for

reinvestment from outside sources, state, federal, and local for rehabbing.

I mean, we've had some of those, but it's been a 30-year interval.

Absolutely.

And you're referring to Piedmont Housing Alliance's Southwood Project.

So those will remain affordable for 30 years at a minimum.

That is through the low-income housing tax credit financing.

So it will be a minimum of 30 years.

And then once that time period hits, they will have the option to go and apply for additional tax credits to bring the property up to current standards at that time.

I'm reassured by that.

Thank you.

Providing the housing for the 40 households, does this quickly help the people who are on the septic failures right now?

So construction has started in phase one.

I'm not entirely certain where they are in all the building permit issuance there.

But the intention is once phase two begins, it will cover that section that's really impacted by the sewer issues, the septic issues.

So they will be the first families to move out and be relocated.

Okay, every day is a long day for folks in that circumstance, and I'm continually harping on that because it really concerns me.

Supervisor Galloway?

Yes, thank you.

I don't have any questions, but I'm going to make a couple comments.

We knew this was coming because this was all brought up to us a few months ago, but I made the point then that the risk of sounding like a broken record

that the conversation and the discussion around the trust fund cannot happen soon enough, in my opinion.

We're on the 20th day of the fiscal year and our housing fund, which we've taken probably three, four years to get up to $5 million, is now down to under $500,000 again.

That's not bad because we are using it, but there's still so much more out there that we need to do.

The $5 million was accumulated through one-time money, some ARPA savings, these surpluses and or through what we did to manage through the pandemic to free up these millions of dollars.

That is not a sustainable approach to attacking the housing issues in the county moving forward.

I was grateful in the last budget cycle that Mr. Richardson had put out, I forget the timeline, but a call or a commitment to begin putting annual operational dollars to the housing fund.

I would hope those dollars would go into the trust fund, but I'm just taking the opportunity to say there's a lot more that we need to do to invest in to help folks with affordable housing.

and I hope this board will continue to be supportive of once the trust fund discussion comes up of how we get the dollars in there other than just waiting to see if we have savings somewhere or money that's left for one-time purposes.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Stacey, thank you for the really good report.

I appreciate you sort of pulled all the numbers together because we've been dealing with a lot of numbers over the last even two years.

So this was really good.

I don't think, well the only question I have because I was, supervisors have covered a couple of my questions.

The only thing I was going to ask is are you going to talk about the dollars that are in

Trust Fund now.

Did you have more slides about those dollars?

Okay.

I just wasn't sure where we were in your presentation.

That's all.

Right.

Because I do agree with Ned.

I think we need to come back to that discussion at some point because we do need funding to be, consistent funding in some way or another.

I have no idea where we would go for that and I think there

So if something comes up that's going to cost more than that, I'm sure we'll get creative to try to figure that out if the project merits it.

But we did just avoid 15 other million dollar projects during these ones.

I was just wondering if she had slides to talk about that on the screen for the community.

All right.

Thank you, Dr. Pethia.

Thank you for your presentation.

I have no questions.

I totally concur.

with Supervisor Galloway and the support for that from Supervisor McKeel.

Ms.

Hudson, is this something, do we need a motion or simply do we need a statement of concurrence?

Thank you.

Just to make sure I didn't misunderstand, in attachment A of your staff report on the very first slide, am I understanding that this first block

is what we're talking about when it talks about the $1.2 million and all of the rehab.

OK.

It said recommended for fiscal year 23 funding, so that's what confused me.

No, no, no.

You'll go to that last slide with the $3 million.

Thank you.

Ms.

Hudson, I appreciate your comment.

I just spoke with Supervisor Galloway who suggested, and I concur with him, that it would just be better, a cleaner record, that we do a vote.

So it's just simply, basically, sort of a motion is on the floor.

All right.

So we have a motion by myself and a second by Supervisor Mallek.

No further discussion.

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Mallek?

Yes.

Ms.

Yes.

Ms.

Price?

Aye.

Thank you, Dr. Pethea.

Thank you.

We appreciate that.

At this time, Board, we will move to item number 10, North Garden Volunteer Fire Company Capital Project Conditional Donation and Loan Request.

Thank you, Chair Price, members of the Board, Doug Walker, Deputy County Executive.

This item is your consideration of both a one-time grant and a loan.

to North Garden Volunteer Fire Company for an expansion of their facility at their current location.

I would like to acknowledge that we have a number of staff who have been active in this issue that are here supporting this matter today including David Puckett, Deputy Chief of ACFR, Jacob Sumner, Assistant CFO for Policy and Partnerships in our Department of Finance and Budget, Amanda Farley, Senior Assistant County Attorney, and of course our most significant partner

North Garden Volunteer Fire Company represented today by President John Shifflett.

So thank you for acknowledging that.

They'll be here to answer any questions that the board might have following the presentation.

A little bit of context.

North Garden Volunteer Fire Company was first established in 1970.

It's been providing vital fire service in the

Southwestern part of the county for many years.

That is their primary first do.

As with all of our companies, they also provide critical backup support throughout the county as well as through mutual aid to nearby localities.

The current station contains seven apparatus bays, a small bunk room, a community meeting room, and a kitchen.

The expansion is intended to provide significant and meaningful additional use, including a contamination area, six additional bunk rooms, a day room, an exercise area.

Address ADA compliance limitations currently by installing an elevator to access the second floor.

Upon completion, the fire company will be able to house an ambulance adding a needed resource to the area.

Currently, the bays are not large enough to accommodate both the apparatus on site and an ambulance on site.

This becomes even more important with the addition of the career staffing weekday daytime starting in October, we assume.

That will also include their use of an ambulance to provide EMS services out of that location as well.

The project cost is currently estimated at $2.5 million.

The completion date is intended to be December of 2022.

The North Garden Volunteer Fire Company project funding donations themselves is $1.3 million and they are requesting the county support of a total of $1.2 million to make the total amount of $2.5 million available.

County staff is recommending a one-time conditional donation of $585,364 as well as a maximum loan amount of $650,000 at 0% interest.

The source of these monies would be the FY23 general funds fund balance.

The conditional donation for the 585-364 would take the form of a lump sum contribution.

It does require project expenditure reporting that would comport with the interest of our County Attorney's Office and our Department of Finance and Budget.

The loan terms we recommend 0% for a 20-year repayment term.

and the funding source of the repayment by North Garden Volunteer Fire Company is from non-county sources.

They do have donations.

They also have property that is rented to the post office there that provides them reliable and consistent income that they can use to support the loan.

Additional requirements is that they remain in good standing with

the county with respect to the coordinated fire and rescue system and that would in our interpretation of that just in general would be that they abide by all of the policies, practices and procedures that are identified within the documents that govern the relationship between the career and the volunteer.

They have done that throughout their history and so it's not a concern but it is a condition that we wanted to make note of

and perhaps even more importantly is the condition that title to the real property that's the subject of this contribution and the improvements would transfer to the county if at any point in the future the North Garden Volunteer Fire Company dissolves.

This is a photograph of what it was and a photograph of what

what previously and what it is as of let's say mid July so perhaps a week ago.

Of course you're noting that this project has already started and they couldn't be completed in December if it hadn't started some time ago.

They're making good progress and the county staff who've been out there to see the project and its progress are very pleased with how well that it's going.

So that is the formal presentation.

I'm glad to answer questions.

Either I can answer or there are others here who might be in a better position to answer any specific questions.

There is a resolution in your packet that authorizes the county executive to execute the conditional donation and the loan agreements.

And if adopted, the funding

the loan.

And I think it protects them, it protects us, it protects our taxpayers.

And this is a good template for us to use throughout the county when we do other things with our other volunteer fire departments.

I do have a question regarding, I know you've gone from one small bunk room to six.

Does that accommodate male, female,

type firefighters, or is that the reason for it or not?

Just asking.

Yeah, it's going to be six additional bunk rooms upstairs and two bathrooms upstairs.

It's going to be added.

OK, perfect.

Just for the record I just want to identify that was Battalion Chief Shifflett who just responded to Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley's questions.

Thank you.

Again, thank you for the presentation.

I'm incredibly grateful to the North Garden Volunteer Fire Department, who I would look to if anything were to happen in our area, so very much in favor of this.

And impressed by the support to be able to raise the $1.3 million so far for this project shows a lot of community support and resources available, so very much in favor.

Thank you.

Thank you and congratulations to all involved to get to this point today.

My only question is one of definition.

So dissolution, are there, and perhaps Attorney Hudson will have to weigh on this, is dissolution different than no longer providing services?

I believe dissolution is used here in its legal sense which is a corporate action, a business entity dissolution methodology and consequences are provided for in the Virginia State Code in the title regarding business

and corporations.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Amanda Farley, County Attorney's Office.

Can you hear me all right?

Yes.

Given the context of the last several years, we will be very specific in our agreement that dissolution does mean, just as Ms.

Hudson indicated,

but in that the corporation could be dissolved voluntarily by the North Garden Volunteer Fire Department.

However, we would also be in capturing if a further relationship were to be dissolved or an agency relationship would be dissolved meaning that they would no longer be authorized to provide volunteer fire services within the county.

So it sounds as if you're covering my concern.

I think, okay, thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Farley.

Supervisor Galloway.

Thank you.

I don't have any questions.

I just want to thank everybody, everybody for their really hard work on this.

And I also have no questions, but as with the other supervisors, I want to express on behalf of the county the great appreciation we have for the North Garden Fire Company.

I mean, you are volunteers.

It's inherent in what you do to have a civic duty.

But we really appreciate the manner in which this has been resolved.

I had the opportunity the other day to do a drive-by to take a look at the work that's being done.

And it's really exciting to see what you all are doing up there.

And really, we just want to say thank you.

We're happy to be partners with you in this.

Second.

We have a motion from Supervisor Andrews and a second from Supervisor Mallek.

Ms.

Mavisto-Kirtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Mallek?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Ms.

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

All right, Board, at this time, we will move to item number 11, SC 2022-251213 Tillman Road Cottage Homestay.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you for having me.

I appreciate it.

It's been a while since I've been in front of y'all, so bear with me if I have any technical difficulties.

Ms.

Brumfield is out, so I'm covering the presentation.

This is a homestay special exception.

We haven't seen a number of these regarding setbacks because we've moved those to consent.

This particular one falls below that qualifier, meaning it is closer to the property line than the normal setbacks.

This particular sideline, I believe, would be 25 feet for a main structure, and this particular structure is 15.

Again, I'm going to kind of go through this a little bit quickly since y'all are familiar with these, especially these setback ones.

But primarily, we're dealing with Section 5148, which is our homestay regulations.

And as I just stated, this particular structure would need to meet those main structure setbacks.

It does not, so it would need a special exception.

This is located in the rural area.

They're asking for up to two guest rooms,

The factors that we normally consider are listed on the slide.

Again, I believe you all are quite familiar with those.

And we talk about adverse impact.

No adverse impact on health, safety, or welfare.

The proposed special exception is consistent with the com plan.

And it would be consistent with the size and scale of the neighborhood and with all special exceptions.

As you know, the administrative process that we use

inserts an automatic kind of screening requirement.

And what that does is it presents the equivalent of what the normal setback would be.

So in this particular case, again, that's one of the things that we consider.

When we look at all those things, the sum total of all the factors to consider is, is that equivalent to what the ordinance regularly calls for?

This is the aerial location photo.

You can see where the residence is, which is the blue asterisk.

The green asterisk is the homestay location.

The letter of support that came in late, we've identified that particular property owner.

And again, you can see the homestay location and the residence house there to the left.

This is a very wooded area.

I'll flip back one slide.

I apologize.

You can see on 65D on the top left-hand corner, it's wooded.

There's topo through there.

And that particular house is quite a ways away.

So the screening that's provided there between what's on the parcel and what is on the adjacent parcel, the neighbor with no objection,

is equivalent to what the ordinance would require.

Again, it's a 2.5 acre parcel and the house was built back in, the original house was built quite a ways back.

There were some renovations done in 2011, same thing with the cottage.

I think it was 1970.

and the primary house was built in 1958 actually.

Spent some renovations to the house in 58, the 1970 structure which is the homestay structure.

The last renovation I believe was 2011.

Staff does recommend that the board adopt the attached resolution F to approve the homestay special exception subject to the following conditions.

That the parking for the homestay guest must meet the requirements for homestay as outlined in the county code.

That the homestay use is limited to the existing structure as currently configured and depicted on the house and parking location exhibit dated June 8, 2022.

That concludes this presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Svoboda.

We'll go through our order.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley?

Okay, I think there's a delay because I already answered, but that's okay.

I will again.

Thank you, Mr. Svoboda.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

That was the delay back to you.

I also don't think I have any questions.

I appreciate hearing the support from the neighbor.

I want to emphasize that I am in no way related to the applicants.

I don't know the applicants, even though we share the same last name.

Thank you.

No questions.

And I have no questions either.

Mr. Spivoda, it may have been a while, but you're still right on your game.

So thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Board, with no further questions, the floor is.

Yes, I did want to make one comment that I appreciate staff and the board, because as we go through all these different things, we do realize that a number of

Homestay, be it a homestay or an ordinance, something else comes up.

We have so many unique properties that it's important to remain flexible in what we do and be able to let our residents have something that isn't flagrantly against the law or impedes others, but that's reasonable, that makes sense.

All right, thank you.

Yes, I would like to move to approve the resolution approving the special exception SE-2022-00025.

We have a motion by Supervisor Andrews and a second by Supervisor Mallek.

Any further discussion?

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Mallek?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Ms.

Aye.

Thank you, Board.

Thank you, Mr. Svoboda.

We're a little ahead of schedule, which is really nice.

But let's go ahead and take our recess now.

At this time, we'll move to item number 12, an action item, SC-20-22-00018, Kendrick Farm, Queenville area.

Yes, thank you again for having me.

This is a special exception request for a clean fill area.

This is the first one of its type since we adopted the ordinance.

The proposal is for clean earth fill activity.

Under our ordinance, the zoning ordinance, the activity is not agricultural.

Fill activity is specifically excluded as an agricultural activity under state code and local code.

So within the Right to Farm Act, there are certain things a locality can and cannot do.

But also within 15.2 2028, there is a section that also talks about what a locality may not do.

But within that section, there is what a locality shall do.

And within that, it says that, and I'm summarizing, that production, agriculture, and civil culture

shall not include the disposal of non-agricultural excavation material that was not generated on the farm.

So when we look at our ordinance, and this is something that we covered when we adopted the ordinance and matched up our definition within the zoning ordinance to this state code section, it states that that activity of bringing fill from off-site is not an agricultural use.

It supports agriculture.

but under those definitions it is not an agricultural use.

The applicant is requesting the exemption from all of 5128, so that is the totality of our clean fill and inert waste regulation.

That particular regulation, some of you or maybe all of you were here, don't know, mine's a little foggy over the last few years.

It was adopted September 16, 2020.

This is a copy of the NCRS plan that was submitted by the applicant.

There's a key there, and I know it's difficult to read, but it shows where the blue is not a stream that is the kind of well line for the water that he has set up for the cattle on the place.

Also, you can see there's some fencing, which is the green lines to fence out streams.

Some of us old-timers, and I'm not sure if it's still called that, is like the CREP program where we're fencing out stream.

So this is the plan that was submitted to NCRS.

This is a layer from our GIS that is the critical resource layer.

and the purple is either the 100 foot setback for the streams, the stream buffer and there is some hatch in there which is difficult to see but is not really on the Kindred property but at that 100 year floodplain which is mostly around Chris Green Lake which is the water body that's to the right or would be to the east

Jacob's Run is the purple that kind of goes up through the middle of the parcel.

The applicable ordinance sections are 5128 but also 51A, which is the beginning of our special exception regulation.

It talks about what the provisions are, what the application

the factors that we need to consider as we go through this.

So not just the regulations itself in 5128, but there's some factors at the end.

Also when granting a special exception in 51A, it talks about having at least the equivalent measures in place when we grant an exception.

This is a summary of those sections, compliance with the requirements, that the exception is about, and this is language right off our code, so it's almost a little backwards, but compliance with the regulation would forward the purpose, would not forward the purpose, meaning the special exception would be better or equivalent.

And so, again, the modified regulation proposed for

or the thing that we're modifying, we're mitigating so it's equivalent or better to what we do, like we do with special permits and like we do with home stays and screening when we reduce setbacks.

The fill regulations were developed to protect public health safety welfare and those regulations were designed to limit the scale and impact on roads, the adjacent areas, noise, runoff,

So requiring compliance with those regulations forwards the purpose of the ordinance and serves that public health safety welfare component.

And again, granting any exceptions, we should at least be doing the equivalent of what the ordinance stated.

The concerns with the application is that we're increasing

the fill areas and the traffic and again with the fill area it's not that this property can't have fill it's beyond what we allow administratively which is the two acres per parcel so fill can still take place it's just at a lower level and that lower level is part of the discussion we adopted the ordinance for mitigating those

impacts of traffic, noise, runoff, those public health safety welfare concerns.

Also within the ordinance, there's a 50-foot setback from the property lines and 100 feet from dwellings.

The project does use an adjacent easement.

It doesn't access the state road directly, although our ordinance doesn't speak directly to it has to access the state road.

That was brought up earlier.

But the easement language is a matter between the easement holders.

And we run into this a lot when we talk about HOA covenants and some other things.

So that's similar.

Filling is limited to eight feet above natural grade.

Without a plan, not sure how that takes place.

So when we start looking at the factors that we need to consider

without the information to make those conclusions, we can't draw that conclusion that is at least equivalent or is protecting health safety welfare.

So staff does recommend that the board adopt attachment G and deny the request for the special exception.

And again, the request is about no

It's harder for me to explain because usually we are picking a certain section.

We're a setback or access or owner or something like that.

This is about being exempt from the entire regulation.

So the ask is about being exempt from all of 5128.

And again, without having an equivalent, if I ask that I'm completely exempt from 5128,

I am suggesting, or it's staff's interpretation that the suggestion is there's not an equivalent provided.

There's no standard.

To be exempt from the standard completely, as opposed to replace it with a different one, exempts you completely.

So that is not an equivalent.

All right, thank you.

We will go through our order.

Technical difficulties.

No, thank you very much, Mr. Spoda.

All right.

Thank you.

There are not so much questions, it's just I had some conversations about the notice requirements and I just want to make sure that everybody's understanding what happens here with respect to who gets noticed because there clearly are people who are affected by

This property's access easements, I guess not in the original notice.

Also, I guess my sense is that this is really an attempt to say, well, this regulation shouldn't apply at all, and asking us to make that determination, which seems highly inappropriate.

Without conditions, I can't understand what I'm really looking at.

I can answer the notice question.

So we follow as we do our standard notice which is the abutting properties and there is this small right-of-way that goes through there.

The easement is located on that property but is not part of the property subject to the special exception.

So under the abutting notice and the guidance that we follow with all our applications through state code, that easement basically doesn't count as abutting.

So we don't notify that particular owner or anyone along the road whose property does not basically touch the subject property of whatever application.

Yes, I'm hopeful that we can, I understand it's not required by state code, but that we can look at situations and perhaps expand our notices when they're on private property's easements and that's the only access.

Alright, thank you.

Thank you.

I concur about the notice because, and also to have us all remember, until the Postal Service solves their monstrous problems, people still haven't received the mailed notice in the neighborhood, still, after three weeks.

So we have to figure out a way to deal with that.

I don't have an answer today.

But based upon the potential impact, it does seem, I would agree with Supervisor Andrews, that when there are impacts to roads and heavy equipment, things like that, that I hope we'll consider being more expansive with our notice that's required.

Let me jump back here to other things.

Thank you for the explanation about any, no, no, go back further, just a moment, the not agricultural.

That is really, really important because this has been used for decades as a way to say we're exempt from everything because we're farming, but there are different elements of agriculture

We're not growing plants here.

We may be preparing or whatever, but this definition comes from the state legal whatever.

I'm happy to rely on that.

I think we should be following state law on that.

And that makes a big difference to me.

Could you talk more about that word any?

please because I think it's been suggested that if it meets one of the six then it must be granted and can you, it was mentioned in an earlier statement today.

So if any of the conditions are met, the board may.

Grant, the special exceptions.

So it still needs to, it could meet some, or it could meet all, but under that section it still needs to be the equivalent of what the regulation is.

So 5.18, when we look at that criteria, we also have to consider 5.1A, which is in the beginning of the supplemental reg,

regulations, and that is kind of the foundation of any of those things that we grant special exceptions for.

When we done it for some other applications and there was a reduced setback, we've added noise attenuation, for instance, or we've added screening, things like that.

So, again, this is about

that equivalent in that particular section, I think that's the NE that you're referring to at the end of 5128.

That the focus there is really on the May.

Well, your presentation about equivalence really resonated and I had missed that in the reading that that was paired with it so that's very very helpful, thank you.

And I would maintain, it's not a question, but maintain that health and safety are a requirement to

protect the health and safety goes for the neighbors and the impacts upon them and the photograph that was provided during matters from the public this morning of the proximity of the neighbor's deck to the heavy equipment going by and the trucks going by is pretty shocking for their well-being.

A little off topic, is there an ongoing inspection timetable for the ongoing operation which was approved in May?

What would the normal be in that circumstance?

I visited the site with Mr. Kendrick prior to any application.

We've been out there a couple of times.

and left a card for Mr. Kendrick.

Right now there's some piles of dirt there.

About once a month, I guess, we go out.

It's not on a regular schedule, so we have a CCO that covers that area.

I check in with her regularly and at this point when the inspection is done, I'll go out.

with her.

And if Mr. Kendrick isn't present, we go to the House to leave a card for him.

Yes.

Okay.

Very good.

Well, I did have a conversation with the FSA representative who also had helped me a couple of decades ago.

and he did explain some of the things that I hadn't understood about the soils, et cetera, because it didn't make sense to have the best soil underneath two feet of subsoil on top.

You know, what was the logic of that?

And he said, well, they provide guidance, but they're not involved in the field approvals in any way.

So I just wanted to clarify that for the board, that this is, they have federal programs that they're providing cost share guidance for, but they're not in a position or advocating or

representing about how this is to be done.

And I think that's all my comments.

All right.

Thank you.

Yep.

Thank you, Bart.

Where do I start?

The HOA, and you may not know the answer to it, are they opposed to the access point or the activity or both?

I have not in contact with a lot of folks within the HOA.

Would it be appropriate to ask the HOA?

I mean it came up during the public comment.

He's still here.

I forgot, Mr. McKeel, is that your name?

Could you come forward?

While he's coming down, we haven't received any letters in support.

Right.

I was just curious, is this the HOA as opposed to the access way?

Okay.

My name is Brian McKay.

I'm president of the homeowners association at Earliesville Forest and our opposition is directly tied to the use of this access by heavy equipment and we want to stop that basically.

So that's it.

We're not opposed to his clean field operation or anything else he does on his property.

It's the fact that

the access is being used in our opinion improperly by heavy trucks.

It's not adequate to the job.

You're welcome.

So that would be a good lead.

I think that's an important note to make because the ordinance says the variation or exception is supported by the abutting owners impacted by the variation.

So that's the activity and the access to the activity I think is an important distinction to make.

So if the

We can meet with the applicant and figure out what the plan is as far as how do we address the traffic issues, how do we address the topo restored to resembling natural grade, those things that would require a plan

Is the road surface sufficient?

Other access I believe would be difficult.

I have been on the property with Mr. Kendrick.

He gave me a tour.

And to get to one side of the property for the other at this point, unless there's another access I'm unaware of, you would have to actually forward Jacob's run.

which is not uncommon for kind of normal farm practices to cross a creek.

You either have a culvert or there are stones there but I imagine based on the age that that ford has been there for quite some time.

Aside from addressing the impacts of the access, if a site plan was brought forward or outlined what the activity was, maybe you have the site plan but then maybe

Number 6 of the ordinance is the one we asked.

I mean, there could be nothing in the denial prevents the applicant from coming back, presenting a plan, perhaps maybe asking for another special exception of one item versus all.

Correct.

That's all, nothing gets blocked out or an obstacle.

Now, if the question, it does seem, to Supervisor Andrews' point, that if this is just a question of whether or not the ordinance is valid or not, I've already answered that question because I voted for the ordinance.

So if that's what this is about, then that's a clear answer for me.

But it seems that some of these things, while hit, like one and two, it seems like those are there, that this is about whether or not this is even a valid ordinance or not.

And I guess this was bound to happen when you put a new ordinance into play.

And if someone questions that, then there are paths that could be pursued for that.

It seems like with some work here, this could probably be worked out in another way, but that's for another day, I suppose.

All right, thank you.

I guess my only question at this point, Bart, is do you have any comments about what Ned just said?

Was I clear what I said?

And the opportunity to sit down with staff and... With a plan, it would be similar to, but probably not at the level of, say a site plan.

We would call it a site plan, but it's not as you think of a normal site plan with parking and all those other things.

because I think there's definitely some concern about the stream and the water.

Anyway, okay.

Thank you very much.

That's all I had.

All right.

I have a number of points I'm going to want to go over.

First thing, though, I had provided to the clerk some additional images that I would like to be shown, so Ms.

Borgerson, if we can pull those up just to visually be able to see what we're talking about here.

Thank you, Ms.

Kilroy

And while she is doing that, I have met with the applicant, Mr. Kendrick, several times and had a tour just earlier this week out to the property to see what is being proposed.

Thank you.

That'll be the first one.

So this image, if you look in the lower right corner, you can see the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport.

And in the upper right corner, you can see Chris Green Lake.

The property in question is basically a little to the left of Chris Green Lake and down a little to the south where that first line at the top goes across where there's a clearing and you can make out a little bit of a circular driveway.

That's the residence on the property there if you've been able to find that.

If you go to the next image, please.

Now one of the issues that was raised in the materials that we read is this is a much better image.

This shows Chris Green Lake.

Now you can see sort of in the left center part of the photo the residence where that circular driveway is.

And as the driveway disappears to the southwest on this image at least,

That is the access point that goes over towards Carriage Hill and just below the T of Carriage Hill is where the house that we saw the earlier image where the truck goes right by Most of the wooded area kind of between the main driveway and the top of the T is sort of the area that's principally under the application Of note, I would want to point out one of the areas of concern in the materials was the siltification

Chris Green Lake.

And if you'll notice on the left side lower part, you can see where siltification has taken place.

However, as another image will show,

That siltification has come from the airport and Earliesville Forest, not really from the property in question here.

If you'll go to the next image, please.

Now this is really an interesting one and it raises a number of questions.

You can see where the easement comes off of Carriage Hill Road and those three properties immediately on the north side on this image

of the easement are the ones that have been referenced earlier today.

The one on the far left, you can see where that residence was built, literally right next to that easement, which raises another question, which basically, why in the world would we authorize or approve the construction of a house within mere feet of an easement?

Right, they were in the 1980s, and I recognize that we've done a lot with regard to, you know, regulations and everything since then.

The farm has been in existence since 1739, so 283 years, I believe, clearly before these homes were constructed, and clearly it shows the need for having a little bit more of a setback when things are done.

So the farm was in operation well before those homes were constructed.

If you'll go to the next image.

And this one I added because here you can see the topography which reflects that that siltification in the lower portion of 32-1A of Chris Green Lake has come principally from Forest Hills and the airport, not from the Kendrick Farm.

In a letter we received today was a recommendation that access to the farm come

down Jacob's Run on the north side of the farm, but as best I can find, and as I believe Mr. Svoboda, you have just indicated, there is no vehicular access established on the northern side.

So the only access to this farm that's been in the same family for 283 years is coming off of Carriage Hill Road.

or Drive, I guess it is.

Okay, thanks.

So it really raises a number of questions.

And when I was out, and thank you Ms.

Kilroy, I do appreciate that.

Ms.

Borgerson, I appreciate your help in getting those available.

I did have a tour of part of the property and I did see where livestock exclusion fencing has been constructed to protect the waterways.

I also saw, and I won't get the terminology right, unfreezable, non-freezable watering systems, which you pointed out the blue lines, which clearly to me, given the history of the family ownership of the farm,

and these actions that have been taken are clear indications this property is under an easement, a conservation easement that is actions being taken towards improving the agricultural use of the property and not in any way to my mind appears at all to be using a regulation in order to do development to then sell and divide the property.

But if the farm is not able to operate, then rather than having the farm, we're going to see more residential construction, I suppose, depending on what the basement may say.

My concern here is that our ordinance may have somehow now created what I would call the law of unintended consequences.

by limiting the soil to have to come from the farm itself.

I recognize and understand at least part of the reasoning behind that ordinance was to avoid what happened with the carpet from University Hall or whatever it was that had been dumped in other places in the county.

But having driven out onto the property, I saw

a number of areas where there's what I would call scouring or erosion, siltification.

And I do believe that Mr. Kendrick is being very honest and sincere that he wants to improve the agricultural use of the property.

So it's interesting, and I'm really struggling with some of this from a couple of perspectives.

One is that we have a farm, and again, 283 years in the same family.

The houses, I believe, were constructed in the 1980s, perhaps.

And it is the only access point to the farm.

So the president of the association said they wanted to stop industrial use of that access point.

It is a farm.

naturally engages in some sort of industrial use.

I also live on a gravel road, although my house is fortunately much further away and dust is an inevitable aspect of it.

So I'm kind of struggling with several things and I'm going to have to turn to our county attorney here.

and I had mentioned to Ms.

Hudson the other day about the Right to Farm Act and is our ordinance which applies zoning, is that in compliance or consistent with the Right to Farm Act in the way that it would now be restricting the ability of a farm owner to try and improve the agricultural property of the farm?

Well, I certainly tried to find whether or not there had been any challenge of zoning provisions of this nature on that basis.

Obviously, the county's ordinance is derived directly from state code, so the question would be whether or not the state code provision then is somehow challengeable on the basis that you described.

I was not able to find anything that I thought created that conflict or

interfered with a landowner's rights on that basis.

I've phoned a friend with respect to these issues, Andy Herrick is here, and may have a deeper appreciation for whether or not there's actually a conflict.

Thank you, Ms.

Hudson.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board.

Pleasure to be here this afternoon.

To address your question as to whether or not this somehow impinges on Mr. Kindredge's right to farm, as Mr. Svoboda said at the beginning, there's a difference between agricultural use on the one hand

and Phil Youse on the other.

And as Mr. Svoboda also pointed out, there was a recent amendment to state law that specifically amended agricultural activity so as not to include imported fill.

So that agricultural activity allows fill or dirt to be used, excuse me, dirt to be used from the property itself.

But there's a key distinction between dirt that comes from the property itself versus dirt that comes that's imported.

And that's where the state law definition of agricultural activity

Thank you.

It's fair to say that by state law this is not farming.

Understand and that really is very helpful.

I don't know who drafted the the motion, but I also the resolution attachment DG But I also have some questions on that.

So Mr. Herrick, I don't know if you might be the right one again and my questions here relate to in our materials

We were provided information that says regarding zoning ordinances fill requirements specifically County Code 18-5-1.28d1 and it lists six various factors.

Any of the following, if they are met, may be sufficient, not will, but may be sufficient

to authorize the approval of the request.

In our materials, the county acknowledges that items one and two have been met.

It is at least somewhat arguable whether number five has been met or not, although I would note that it is one of the two that's listed as not being met in the proposed resolution attachment G. So my question is, we have six that are listed.

The county acknowledges that one and two have been met.

The resolution is saying that two have not been met, which leaves two that are never mentioned.

And so I'm kind of questioning, is there a prioritization that is being given to two of these that the county says have not been met as opposed to the other four, and why

why they are, the motion is saying not to approve it because two of the permissible six have not been met, but doesn't really address the other part.

Have I made my questions clear?

No, that's very clear.

So there are, as you pointed out, there are a total of six, two of which are mentioned specifically in the resolution, but before you even get to those two sub points of the resolution and attachment G, it goes to the other point that Mr. Spoboda brought up earlier, which was the part of 5-1a, which says that if

if an applicant requests an exception, there has to be equivalency, there has to be some sort of protection in place that if you ask for a waiver of a regulation, it can't just be left with no replacement, that the board has to decide that in fact the alternate regulation protects the public interest to the same extent if not greater than the standard provision and I think that language is in the

So I'm not vouchsafing for the accuracy, I'm simply reporting what has been told to me and some of which I have seen in documents and that is that according to Mr. Kendrick, Kenny Thacker from county staff told him what to write

for the request, and now he's being criticized for not being complete enough.

Frank Pohl said from the program side that this appears to be fine and you can move forward, but Bart Svivoda from zoning said that it's not fine.

And so what I've got here is internal inconsistency of information to my perception,

of what is being provided by county staff to a member of our community.

And again, I'm not saying all of that's accurate, I'm simply saying what's been reported to me.

And I don't think that's helpful for the process because I think our county works genuinely hard

to try and help members of our community to be able to find a way to achieve what they are requesting within compliance of the law.

Yeah, so it doesn't change the kind of conflicting information that went out.

Since that time, we're communicating better with engineering.

The context on, I think, which speaking out of turn for Mr. Thacker and

the engineering department, the conversations we have had since and the process we have implemented involving fill areas and checking with all the applicable regulators.

So normally when we talk about earth disturbance, which is what this appears to be, the WPO ordinance is what rules the roost in most cases.

If you have an agricultural use, the WPO ordinance may not and in most cases will not regulate that, but that doesn't make you exempt from zoning.

So when we were answering questions in the past, we were answering it based on what we knew about

what we knew not based on a thorough understanding of the new regulation.

An example would be farm buildings, for instance.

If I use that as an example, they must have a zoning permit, they need zoning inspections, and they have to meet the zoning ordinance.

However, as we know, discussions over a number of months or years here at the board, farm buildings don't need

building code inspection.

So they're not required to get a building permit per se, but they're required to have a zoning permit.

The same thing is what started the confusion with these fill areas is they may not, if they're agricultural, then they may not be subject to the WPO ordinance, but they are still subject to the zoning ordinance.

So the language that we use is

more technical and we're trying to do a better job at speaking English to the folks outside of the building.

And that's what happens also with farm buildings.

We say, yes, you need a permit.

So what the applicant hears is a building permit, but wait a minute, I'm exempt from the building code.

Okay, so I guess this is sort of my last area of questioning either Mr. Svoboda or Mr. Herrick.

If Mr. Kendrick wanted to do exactly what I understand and what has been shown using soil from within his property already, would that be okay?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Right.

I'm not sure that that's a change in state law.

It is a clarification of state law that that fill that imported dirt is not considered an agricultural activity.

At least for those industrial uses.

Now I still have some concerns and this is I guess dicta or off to the side about restricting any industrial use on that driveway because it is a farm and there will be

at least normal farm related industrial movement of either equipment or whatever it may be.

I don't think we can deny a farm the ability to operate.

All right, thank you.

I have no further questions.

I really do appreciate all of the information that y'all have provided.

I know that other supervisors may have questions again.

I'll just go around.

I understand what you're saying about the history and the expectation of how the property has been done in the past, but I feel like I have to look at this and say this is an exemption from

Alright, thank you.

Thank you.

A couple of clarifications.

It was stipulated, you reported that there's no other access to this farm.

And yet the main entrance to the farm is on Advance Mills Road.

There's a great big Herald sign that says Jacobs Run Farm right there that's been there since the 70s at least in my personal memory and probably

much earlier when Allen got the sign made.

So that is an existing road.

It has some other houses off of that road, but there is a full road that has been there forever.

I don't know exactly when this easement began to be used, but the first I heard about it was when the property was timbered.

And so I don't think it's fair to criticize the person living in the house when this was a handshake agreement, maybe.

Nobody's been able to find any documentation as far as I'm been told.

about what's to be allowed on this property.

But the houses were definitely built before we returned to Albemarle in 82, so that puts it in the 70s at least for the neighborhood.

I appreciate it.

Before you go on, Mr. Svoboda, I thought when you had spoken, you had said that you could go across Jacobs Run, but there really wasn't another access to the farm.

So there is another access on Jacobs Run.

You could go on the other side of the farm.

Yes, going through the creek.

As opposed to Jacobs Run, the road.

Yes, ma'am.

Got it.

OK, thank you.

The street is Jacobs Run.

Advance Mills is the road.

So it is really important, I think, that we get

There are choices to be made about activities on different parts of one's property based upon what can be accomplished.

and there are lots of ways to slow erosion if there are gullies you put rocks in the gullies and the rocks stop the soil that's coming and end up building a care for many of us who don't have access to heavy equipment that's what we've always done and when things are small you stop them then and then they grass over and they're fine the power of water is astronomical and anybody who doesn't appreciate that is destined to repeat the same problems that you had before

Bringing in more loose dirt to put in an area of very high water flow only means that to me that dirt is going to head off downstream and go somewhere else.

We all deal with that in our yards every day no matter where we live as soil is moving around.

I appreciate what Mr. Svoboda said about the various staff people working together because

Even after so many years, I still have a hard time keeping straight the WPO versus the zoning versus everything else.

So I really appreciate them being able to amalgamate all their information ahead of time.

and I do understand the confusion because in 1982, as a newly returned resident, I wanted to build a barn and I went to the zoning person in the county and I said, I want to get a permit to build my barn and we want to put it right on the property line because my father runs the other side and this is where he wants it.

And sure, sure, you don't need a permit.

So I went home and this was anecdotal, the person no longer works here.

retired with honor long ago.

So we built the barn.

And when John Grady, the building inspector, then the building official, came to do our certificate of occupancy for our house, he said, what's that barn doing here?

and I said, well, we were told we could build it.

And he said, oh, no, you don't.

You're going to have to go to the BZA and get a waiver.

So I do understand how these, we hear, and I was asking about a billing permit.

I guess the official whom I asked to begin with thought I was talking about a special permit or something else.

But that is just an example of how confusion happens.

And I very much appreciate the extra diligence on the part of staff now to make sure that we do the very best job we can

to help everybody understand.

Do you want comments now?

To me, the state law definition saying that the fill is different is incredibly important.

To me, the equivalency is incredibly important.

We spent years on this ordinance.

This did not come out of nowhere.

There were round-tail bills that were discussions on and on.

between five and ten years of discussions and to the point where I was tearing my hair out wondering if we were ever going to get anything adopted and I'm sure that the county engineer was glad to have me stop pulling my hair.

So I don't think it's, I cannot support someone saying I don't want this law to apply to me.

and I think that we have to make a decision based on the information we have now and if there's some future application that comes in with something different, that would be fair to the neighbors and to the process.

Continuing to eternally modify this application I don't think is fair because they've been very clear about what they want and we have to decide whether we're going to approve that or not.

That would be I think the clearest way for my brain to handle it anyway.

Thank You supervisor Galloway And I don't know if this goes to Bart perhaps Andy maybe both the when you talk about if you get an exception from one there has to be a replacement Replacement down that I heard that right an equivalent so does equivalent mean So if you have a supporting factor

that if you accepted one of the other factors, can enhanced support of some kind for the other factor be a replacement?

So my idea is that if I want 15,000 cubic feet brought in instead of 10, that would be an exception.

My rationale meaning that it would further support the agricultural use

because of the plan would say here's what that would be used for, et cetera.

There would need to be a modified regulation that would serve the public interest to at least the same degree as the original regulation.

And I can read from the ordinance, the Board of Supervisors may modify or waive any such

upon defining that such a requirement would not forward the purposes of this chapter, the zoning ordinance, or otherwise serve the public health, safety, or welfare, or that a modified regulation would satisfy the purposes of this chapter to at least an equivalent degree as the specified requirement.

So in other words, if the board, in looking at the default regulation,

Thank you.

I mean, if I were the property owner, I'd be incredibly frustrated by this, but I'm not, you know, especially with the history and how long the property has been owned.

but I'm not going to rehash the rationale behind why we put the ordinance in place.

The ordinance was put in place for good reasons.

I think even then we knew that this would likely frustrate good actors coming forward but the regulation or the ordinance was put in place to stop the bad actors of the activities that we were concerned about.

So that being said, I mean, when I look at these six factors and I start to theorize what a different application could be, I clearly think there's probably a way forward here.

But it does seem like I'm just, we voted on an ordinance.

This is the first time something's come up in front of the ordinance.

We're being asked, forget about the ordinance for a minute.

I'm not there.

I'm not going to waive the ordinance.

I think the ordinance was legitimate.

I think the ordinance was done for good purpose.

and while I can empathize of the frustrations that must exist here, I think with what we had set up to allow for exceptions, and one of which by the way of the six is not applicable because it's an entrance corridor piece, but I would think there could be a way forward here other than just asking for the whole ordinance and there's going to have to be some give or take back, especially it seems that we have a good actor that would be in front of us given the history of the actual property.

All right.

And then my final comments, really, I've got two different areas.

The first one I forgot to mention earlier.

I agree we need to expand the notification requirements beyond what currently is the requirement.

I know in some other areas, staff has recommended doing like a, I'm just going to pick a distance, it may not be accurate, a 500-foot radius or something like that.

And I would, I really would ask county staff think about

applying a reasonable standard rather than a hard and fast rule on adjacent property.

I think that would be much more in line with the way the county operates.

From the very outset, what I have tried to ascertain is the difference between three different things.

The application of the ordinance to an individual property owner, an exemption from the ordinance,

and exception to parts of the ordinance.

And those are three very different things.

I really appreciate Ms.

Hudson, Mr. Herrick, Mr. Svoboda and others in county attorney's office and county staff, which really only today have allowed me to reach the point of understanding the difference in this particular case as relates to the application of our ordinance

the Exemption from the Ordinance and Exceptions to the Ordinance.

And frankly, it was actually that last thing, the clarification of the state law, Mr. Herrick, that you have provided, and I apologize if I missed that somewhere in our materials, but that has been tremendous because I really have struggled

Supervisor Galloway, I agree.

We have, and Ms.

McKeel, I realize I forgot to come back to you.

I have really struggled when this is a good actor trying to improve his farm.

that has been in the family for all of these years.

But with the clarification, I do now find myself in a situation where I am not going to be able to support the request, but I really want county staff to do what I believe county staff does, which is help this community member achieve within the law what he wants to do, which is to improve the quality of this farm.

No, it's all right.

I appreciate it.

And I can simplify this pretty quickly and say that I agree with you and I agree with what other folks are saying as well.

We have a state ordinance, right, our state law and our ordinance.

I'm sympathetic with the property owner.

The one thing I will say about this whole discussion is I have a real hard time when we come to the dais and we're pitting staff against what one staff member said and another staff member said.

To me,

That takes us into an area that at times I want to raise my hand and say let's put a pause on this and go back and let staff come back to us with some explanations and some clarity.

Now, I'm not going to do that necessarily this time because I think we do have the state law that we're trying to conform to, so I'm not supportive right now of this.

application, and I'm agreeing with staff.

But I would like to get to the point where we're not getting into a he said, she said with staff over staff, that's what I'm saying, and the applicants.

And I'm not being critical of you.

I'm just talking process.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

Any further comments by any board members?

OK, I'm sorry I didn't hear.

We have a motion from Supervisor Mallek and a second from Supervisor Andrews.

Any further discussion?

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Mallek?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Ms.

Aye.

We will now move to item number 13, the Transportation Planning Quarterly Report.

And Ms.

All right.

Thank you for having me here today.

As you guys know, my name is Jessica Hirsch-Ballering.

I am a principal planner with Albemarle County Community Development.

Planning manager Kevin McDermott is unable to join us today because he's out of office.

Additionally, unable to join us today is the newest member of our transportation planning team, Alberic Carina Plun.

He's at a conference right now.

He'll be joining us for the next quarterly report, if not sooner.

So much of our work the last quarter has been focused on SmartScale.

As you may recall, the SmartScale grant program is the primary method for funding large-scale transportation projects in Virginia.

The program provides state and federal funds for the design, right-of-way, and construction of projects.

SmartScale is a competitive grant program, so VDOT will evaluate potential transportation projects based on how likely the project is to improve safety, reduce congestion, increase accessibility, contribute to economic development, promote efficient land use, and impact the environment.

Once a project is funded, the design, right-of-way, and construction process can be administered either locally or by the Virginia Department of Transportation.

In the last round of SmartScale, we requested VDOT administer our projects and we're doing the same this round.

Requesting that VDOT administers a project doesn't make it any less or more competitive, but it does reduce the burden on county staff to complete funded projects.

So this slide highlights recent SmartScale milestones and next steps.

So we submitted pre-applications in April of this year.

In June, we presented to all of you the projects the county and our partners would be submitting as final applications.

At that meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution of support for all of the presented projects.

Now I'm going to jump ahead to the next slide to remind you of the 12 project applications that we presented at that June meeting.

If funded, all of these projects would be constructed at least partially within Albemarle County.

The numbers next to each project indicate the project's priority ranking according to the county's own 2019 Transportation Priorities document.

The projects in the orange column are the projects that Albemarle County staff are submitting directly.

The projects in the green and blue columns are the projects that Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and MPO staff are submitting on the county's behalf.

Since we presented these projects to you so recently, I'm not going to go into detail on any of them, but I will note that descriptions for each project are included in the written quarterly report.

So back to our milestones and next steps.

Final applications will be submitted very soon, by August 1st, and then we wait.

Funding decisions will be finalized by June of 2023.

So once a SmartScale project is funded, there's usually a lag of about five years before work really begins.

However, these four projects from 2020, Old Lynchburg Road and Fifth Street extended intersection improvements, Route 20 and Route 53 intersection improvements, Railroad and John Warner Parkway intersection improvements, and I should note that all of those projects are

Roundabout projects, roundabout improvements, and the Route 250 East Corridor improvements from Stony Point Road to Rolkin Road, those four projects have all been fast-tracked at VDOT's discretion.

VDOT will begin design on the three roundabout projects this fiscal year.

They'll begin design on the corridor project in fiscal year 25.

They'll then bundle the construction for the corridor project with construction for another project that's currently in design, intersection improvements at Route 20 and US 250 in Pan Tops.

Bundling construction maximizes cost efficiencies and reduces disruption to road users.

So also in design right now we have the much anticipated hydraulic and 29 intersection improvements.

This project will reconfigure the hydraulic and 29 intersection as well as the Angus and 29 intersection and it will construct a pedestrian bridge over 29 near Zan Road among other features.

VDOT is administering this project and they held a well-attended public meeting for this project back in May.

So another source of grant funding for transportation projects is revenue sharing.

I'm excited to share that our application for revenue sharing funds for Eastern Avenue South was successful.

And this will allow for the construction of a new roadway from US 250 to Corey Farms Road bridging Licking Hole Creek.

Like SmartScale, there's a lag between when revenue sharing funds are awarded and when they become available to use.

So we're looking into the possibility of advancing local funding to move this project along while we wait for the revenue sharing funding to become available.

The other projects listed here were previously awarded revenue sharing funds and are in various stages of design.

You can get more details on the Berkmar Drive extension project from VDOT's quarterly report.

And you can get more details on the other projects, Commonwealth Crozet Square, Library Avenue, and Berkmar Drive bike and pet improvements from Facility Environmental Services quarterly report, both of which are included in your meeting materials.

Moving on to the six-year plan.

So the secondary six-year plan allocates funding for the construction, maintenance, and improvement of roads in the state secondary system, including the hard surfacing of unpaved roads.

The Board of Supervisors recently approved minor changes to the road paving process.

Those changes include clarifying that in order to add an unpaved roadway to the county's paving priority list, two-thirds of residents on that roadway must voice support for that action, likely through a petition.

Since that change was made or that clarification was made, staff have already received requests or inquiries to add Sutherland Road, the unpaved portion of Hamox Gap Road, and Deca Lane to the paving priority list.

Additionally, the changes clarified that in order to use funds to actually pave a roadway that is on the paving list, again, two-thirds of the residents must support the paving.

Lastly, as Kevin has mentioned previously, we might eventually run out of unpaved roads that residents want paved and in anticipation of that we are working with VDOT to explore how other jurisdictions are using these funds for other projects and we'll keep you guys up to date as we learn more.

Moving on to transit planning, county staff continue to attend regional transit partnership meetings.

The partnership is wrapping up their work on the regional transit vision plan, which is a county supported project to develop a community driven vision for the future of transit in our region.

As part of the regional transit vision plan efforts, a public survey is underway and available on the project website for a few more days through the 22nd.

Also, we recently learned that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission received funding from the Department of Rail and Public Transit for a regional transit governance study.

So this study is intended to build upon the regional transit vision plan and answer the question, what is the appropriate governance structure to move forward the regional transit priorities identified in the vision plan?

The Board of Supervisors supported this study at the January board meeting.

The Albemarle County Transit Expansion Study, which was a study to look at potential immediate service changes to improve transit in up to three areas of the county, has concluded.

That study ultimately recommended a one-year pilot microtransit service for two of the study areas, Route 29 North study area and Pantops.

The Board of Supervisors supported that recommendation back in January, and we recently learned that Charlottesville Area Transit's grant application to fund most of that service was successful.

County staff are working with CAT to make necessary preparations to begin the service, likely in the spring of 2023.

Progress continues on transit stop improvements, albeit slowly, as Charlottesville Area Transit has experienced some staffing changes that temporarily slowed some of those improvements.

Nonetheless, I expect that we will see a transit shelter on District Avenue in Stonefield very soon, and I expect that you'll see more information regarding the Northside Library transit stop in the next month or so.

Okay, so...

Let's see.

In the interest of time, I'm going to speed through these next two slides.

This slide highlights the larger development projects that transportation staff have reviewed in the previous quarter.

I'll note that now that we've filled out our transportation team with a new hire, we are able to more easily review even more development projects.

Next slide.

This slide highlights some of the reported transportation issues we addressed in the previous quarter.

As you can see, it's a lot of speeding and safety concerns.

As always, we address these concerns in collaboration with VDOT and Admiral County Police Department.

Okay, so we've wrapped up discussions of the work we've completed in the last quarter, and now we're giving you a preview of upcoming work.

So as part of this fiscal year's budget, the Board of Supervisors approved funding for conceptual planning for these three bike and pedestrian focused projects.

Free Bridge Lane, Route 20 Shared Use Path, and Solomon and Englewood pedestrian improvements.

The scope for each of these projects is outlined in our written report, and we hope to begin these very soon.

Lastly, we've been paying attention to the many new and expanded funding opportunities that have come out of the bipartisan infrastructure law.

The supervisors will be familiar with the raise application that we submitted in the previous quarter requesting funds to support planning activities for a three notch trail shared use path through Albemarle County from the city of Charlottesville to the Blue Ridge Tunnel.

We should learn if that project is funded next month.

We're also working with the grants team and planning to submit an application for grant funds through the Reconnecting Communities pilot program.

So this program addresses the reality that transportation infrastructure can have the negative impact of functioning as a barrier, cutting communities in half and preventing individuals from accessing necessary resources and opportunities.

The Reconnecting Communities program supports planning grants and capital construction grants to restore community connectivity.

Right now, we're looking at the barrier Route 29 poses to our community, especially to our most underserved populations.

We expect to return to the Board of Supervisors as soon as we've identified more details of a potential project application.

Lastly, we're planning to apply for a Safe Routes to School Technical Assistance Grant.

This grant would help us identify competitive potential Safe Routes to School planning and construction projects, and our focus will be on schools in the development area.

All right.

Thank you.

We'll go through our order.

Thank you very much for the presentation.

I did have one question.

On the one slide, and I can't remember what number it was, it showed all three for county and then TJPBC and then something else.

You have three sections there.

And on two of those, I saw an N.A.

So the numbers indicate how the project was prioritized in our 2019 transportation priorities document.

Having an N.A.

next to it just means it wasn't prioritized in that document either because it came up after that document was finalized or it was prioritized in other documents more regionally.

So for example, let's see here the Rivanna River Bike and Pedestrian Bridge wasn't

Okay, what about Melton Road and then Rolkin to 20?

So all of the projects in the green column being applied for by the PDC on our behalf were identified as part of VDOT's project pipeline process.

So this was a project where VDOT, using their V-trans

their priority system, they identified areas that they wanted to investigate more closely.

So that's where these projects come from.

Again, these are VDOT priorities that match up very well with the SmartScale scoring system.

OK.

And the last question is,

I noticed you said that if two-thirds of the residents along an unpaved road, gravel road, if two-thirds of the residents submit application, then that would be taken into consideration for paving.

I'll have to get back to you on that.

Okay, because a lot of the secondary rural roads, some of them are only 16 feet, and I think VDOT wants 18 feet now too.

Yes, thank you for the presentation and congratulations on the awards so far.

I'm looking forward to hearing more successes.

This is amazing.

Now if we could look at slide seven real quickly and then slide nine.

I just got a couple questions.

So she asked a question about the rural paving.

First of all, I know that there are some issues about scenic designations as well.

This clarified that this two-thirds of residents support

adding it to the priority list and then two-thirds support paving.

And then slide nine, please.

I would say the bulk of the work has been completed on them.

I do not know whether or not these development projects have been fully reviewed by all staff.

OK, thank you.

I just want a clarification.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Regarding the unpaved road thing, I

Hammock's Gap was the one I didn't write down fast enough.

That was going to be one question.

Both DECA and Hammock's Gap, the leftover section, we were told earlier, like every year for the last five years, don't qualify for VDOT.

So that may save you a lot of time if you're able to keep that VDOT evaluation in mind.

And then when someone calls, you can say, sorry, we're not going to go there.

And Sutherland is, I think, a

Dead End Road with like five houses on it unless they've redeveloped.

We looked at a farm down there back in 1978, so I'm just not sure.

Probably a little more than that on there now.

Still, all of the traffic numbers, et cetera, would apply.

That would be good.

Very glad to know about Solomon Road because I know that's been waiting a long time.

My father's animal hospital was right next door there, so I know that has been built up since the 50s and needs some help.

That's really all.

I really look forward to more process completion on the gravel road issue because it will help staff not spin their wheels over and over and also from the other jurisdictions

they have, in Virginia, are using gravel road money for other things and so we don't want to miss the boat on that solving drainage problems and things like that.

Alright, thank you.

Yes, thank you Chair Price.

I would make the recommendation and Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley kind of set the context.

When folks look at our documents and they see those NAs

you know when I first was on this board the Belvedere Rio was not on our transportation priority list and now it's going forward with a smart application now it's since been added but just because they're in a doesn't mean they're not important or prioritized now you explained why I appreciate that but we as a county should probably

identify the corridors that are, because you do have ranked the 250, 20, you know, the diverging diamond interchange.

Some of these, like the Peter Jefferson Parkway is the perfect example.

That's the exact right project for these other ones that have developed, and how can we capture that in the document?

So if somebody's looking, well, why are they funding this project that wasn't even on their list over number four?

You know, eight that was on the list.

But if they're on an identified corridor, just like Rio Road would be the same thing, that's an identified, highly prioritized arterial road that we would want to help the traffic solutions on and just somehow get at that story in the documentation of it all.

So I just throw that recommendation out there.

And then the other one, I didn't know the microtransit grant went through or was successful.

That's fantastic.

I missed that nugget along the way.

I was going to say I think they met in June, the Commonwealth Transportation Board and approved.

So I think it's pretty new information is what I'm saying.

And we didn't meet in early July.

So it's all good.

Just a couple of questions.

And thank you for the great report.

Can you just help me with the timeline?

I understand that the hydraulic intersection, the work around hydraulic

which of course is in my hood so I'm very interested in that.

I understand why it wasn't, or I understand it was not sped up by VDOT and I get that process and that's all okay.

When though could we expect work on that?

So that one was not technically fast-tracked in the same way as the other projects were, but it had funding left over from the previous planning process.

So that one is actually moving forward.

VDOT is administering it.

Like I said, they held a public meeting that was really well attended back in May, and they have a project website that your constituents can check out.

and that is that is moving along.

It is solid.

Help me with the CAT and the microtransit.

And what I'm interested in, has CAT determined who will the provider for the microtransit service?

Because there were some discussions about whether it would be CAT or another provider.

We don't know yet.

Okay, and just from my viewpoint, it would be a shame to bring in yet another provider into our community, but having said that, I will be interested in knowing who the provider will be.

The Solomon Road piece is, thank you whoever said it, and I think Ann, I'm a little, I'm hearing a disconnect between what you said

about the Solomon and Englewood pedestrian improvements and what I read in this document.

I guess my question is, I am aware that there is a real need for safe pedestrian access along Solomon and Englewood.

My understanding from VDOT, because of all the driveways, that it would be very expensive.

We have actually talked about

because the road is so wide utilizing some of the different types of lines on the roads or whatever it might be to offer safe pedestrian movements through that area.

But I didn't see anything about that.

I'm just trying to figure out

Okay, so that wasn't in the description and I just was a little confused.

Yeah.

Okay.

What is interesting, and I know this board doesn't have any control over it, but I will point out that Englewood was just recently paved by VDOT, of course.

and half of Solomon has been repaved and there are the equivalent of one long block along Solomon that was completely left out of the paving project and it has deteriorated really badly.

I'm trying to go back right now to VDOT and see if we can at least complete the paving in that area.

As I often say, it is wackadoodle.

Well, it's just very bizarre, and that's not for us to deal with, but I am trying to figure out how to get everyone on that road repaved.

I'm just noting it.

Thank you very much, Jim.

And I concur, it was an excellent presentation.

I have no questions for you.

Well, maybe we should look at getting rid of the big trucks, big white Ford trucks.

Board, we are quite surprised.

I won't mess up the advance.

I did send forward to Jess and Kevin and the board

some links, there was an NPR story about Wilson, North Carolina and the microtransit that I was listening to when I was in the bean patch the other day and they're having wild success and the first year they held on to their buses just in case it failed and now they're getting rid of all their buses because people have just gone from

50 riders to 3200 or something, some monstrous amount of equipment.

And my question is, does CAT get to decide that they're going to provide service themselves and give themselves the money?

Jessica maybe wants to come back, but my understanding is that CAT

could be the provider or CAT could determine another provider would be.

Oh, there you go.

There's Trevor.

Maybe I'll have old news.

So CAT is the provider and who this has been awarded to.

It's what we had presented to the board back in the spring.

because they are the ones contractually obligated for the service.