Pleased to call to order for meeting the Amelmaro County Board of Supervisors on October 1 at 1PM, Lane Auditorium McIntyre County Office Building. I'd like to note it today as we have supervisor Ann Malek of the Whitehall District, supervisor Ned Galloway of the Rio District, supervisor Diane Kiel of the Jack Jewett District, supervisor Mike Pruitt of the Scottsville District, and myself, Jim Andrews, representing the Samuel Miller District. Quorum is present. Supervisor B. Lapisto, currently of the Ravenna District, has requested to participate remotely in accordance with applicable board rules of procedure rule number eight b one d,
enacted pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Supervisor Lapisto Kirtley, if you're there, please state your reason for remote participation in your location. Good afternoon. Afternoon there, but, morning here. I'm in Seal Beach, California, and I am visiting family. Okay. I'm looking for a motion to admit supervisor Lupista Kirtley to the meeting. So moved. Second. We have a motion from supervisor Malek, second from supervisor Pruett. Without objection, if the clerk will call the roll. Miss Malek? Yes. Miss McKeel? Yes. Mister Pruett? Aye. Mister Andrews? Yes. Mister Galloway?
Yes. Supervisor Lupista currently, you are admitted. Thank you. Thank you. We are also joined here by our deputy county executive, mister Trevor Henry, our county attorney, mister Andy Herrick, our clerk, miss Claudette Borgeson, and our senior deputy clerk, Travis Morris. Also, please let me welcome Albemarle County police officers present, officer Hunter Harmon and Caden Painter. Thank you for your service today and every day on behalf of, the people of Albemarle County for our protection, safety, and security. If all present could now stand as you are able and join us in the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, a nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. And if you would now please join us in a moment of silence. Thank you, board. Our first item, of course, as always, is adoption of the final agenda. I've heard no requested changes to the final agenda. I must pull my minutes. That'll be in the consent agenda. For the consent. That's right. Thank you. So I'm looking for a motion to adopt the final agenda.
So moved. Second. We have a motion from Supervisor McKeel. There's a second from Supervisor Malek without objection if the clerk will call a roll. Ms. Malek? Yes. Ms. McKeel? Yes. Mr. Pruitt? Aye. Mr. Andrews? Yes. Miss mister Galloway? Yes. Miss Lupiso Kirtley? Aye. Thank you. Board, our first item then is brief announcements by board members, and we'll start with supervisor Lupiso Kirtley. You're back on. Thank you very much. First today. Okay. Thank you very much. I am so lucky to be first. I can't tell you how much I appreciate that.
I wanted to let everyone know that this morning on the Today Show, we were featured, regarding fall foliage. They talked about Charlottesville, Albemarle County, the Monticello Wine Trail, the fact that we have 70 wineries, Downtown Seaville, UVA and hotels, and the CACVV, our visitors bureau, assisted with the producers last week, to source imagery and talking points. So pretty proud of all that. So I watched the segment, and it was very nice if you get a chance to watch it. Thank you.
That's all. Thank you. Supervisor Pruitt. Thank you. I on a similar note, you know, earlier this weekend, I had the honor and privilege of joining two of my elected counterparts in the city and a huge group of other members of our regional community, to run the Loop DeVille celebrating the Ravana Trail Foundation. And it is a great reminder, along with the incredible weather we have, coming in to work today, that this truly is the peak season for our region for outdoor activities that really drive our economy and drive our culture. I hope everyone gets out there and enjoys the best that Charlottesville has to offer
and also, continues to be safe if you're out there on any of our trails. It is also currently early voting. You can vote literally right now if you go to the, Fifth Street County offices. There are several contested local offices, and there are three different very important contested state offices that are all going to be on your ballot. This includes making sure you, have a voice on the people who are gonna be up here. It's important. So please, get out there for early voting. If you are not registered or you've recently moved and you're like, oh, well, I need to go to the DMV to do that.
That's not correct anymore. You can actually just do it there on the day of. You can register in person. Go vote y'all. It's a good time. And finally, I I would be remiss if I did not mention this. So, our counterparts on the school board do a lot of work. I have a friend who serves on the school board, Allison Spellman, who made a somewhat controversial statement on her personal Facebook recently. And over the last twenty four hours, she has received thousands of to her personal cell phone on her personal email, threats, harassing texts, statements threatening her children.
It is it is a monstrous reminder of the way that the kind of current moment of intense vitriol in our politics can leach into people's personal lives and the ways that it can deeply chill and affect our ability to do our jobs at the local level. Right? This is this is grassroots, right, local, us doing the simple work of caring for our communities and the fact that that can be something that is coming from national level Twitter hate mongers is is really
disgusting. So I I continue to hold out her and her family in in my prayers for care, and continue to be disturbed by the impotence we have as local leaders to do anything about this kind of vitriol when it comes to streaming in. That's all I have. Thank you. Supervisor McHugh. I just have one, thing I wanted to chat with this morning. Anne and I both attended recently. Almore County Public Schools had an event to recognize and,
celebrate their new scholars studio. Okay. Yeah. You have your notes there as well, Anne. So I won't say I'll give you plenty of chances here, but it was really wonderful. There were all sorts of men people from the community, including the chamber, and business, business members. And we broke up into groups based on the studio that we were interested in. And I joined the entrepreneur business and innovation group to talk about the work through Almar County public schools in that area.
But I really and it was just a great event to find out more about what the Scholars Studios are all about and to give input from the community to the Almore County Public School system. But I really wanna send a shout out because Emily Kilroy was one of, you know, our director of economic development, was, one of the keynotes kicking off the event. And Emily did a great job with us. They called it a sector spotlight, and she talked to the folks in the room about our workforce development and what
we are doing in Alamar County around workforce development. So it was really thank you, Emily. If you're here, I'm not sure if you are, but anyway, she did a great job and I'll let Anne talk about it at a little bit more in detail. Thank you. Yep. Supervisor Mallard. Thank you very much. I'll go to that one first because it's right in everybody's mind. It was a wonderful learning experience. As someone who was very attached to the environmental sciences academy and having known the children who had gone through the whole four years there, I was delighted to learn the enthusiasm that of the students who were entering and
also the variety of the options that students will have now to not have to be in for a whole four years, but to pop in and pop out and really have that more liberal arts focus rather than getting in a tunnel and then not being able to do a u-turn. I was really appreciative of the planning, the faculty who were there, the students. I was sitting at a Terra table. That's the sort of environmental land side. And next to us was the nexus table, which was the computer programming. And the GIS kids are gonna be working with the Terra students on farm analysis
using drones in Nelson County to assess the fertility of soil. Wow. So, anyway, that's all something that is available to students in high school, and that's pretty outstanding considering what I remember when we were studying in high school at Almore High School in nineteen sixties. So that was a wonderful experience, and and, I wish them all the luck in the world. You've heard me talk about the upcoming Ravenna River Basin conference. Well, we had it, and it was a great success. There were a 100 plus people who came. We had speakers. Dave Hirschman talked about the water crisis in 1995 and the huge flood and the
impacts of the Mormons River followed immediately seven years later or five years later by the drought of record and the impacts to the water system from that. So that brought back many, many memories, some painful, some not, but his presentation. And he's a former water resource person here at Amal County, so that was like coming home for us. Great fun. Also, speakers from the Ravenna Water and Sewer talked about the state planning, and also a lovely, young woman from our, DEQ talked about the state regional water planning and the progress that they're making with
that. So I learned tremendous amount with that. There were speakers from Provanta Conservation Alliance and PEC talking about conservation and also some updates on data centers. And I think everyone really felt like they got a lot out of it. So hopefully next year, when you hear that this is coming, please consider joining. It is time to collect walnuts. Department of Forestry is collecting walnuts this year to grow in their nursery over in the valley. And I only found this out by accident because we have walnuts everywhere, and you can hardly walk in our yard without falling down.
So I contacted Dave Powell and asked him if they wanted them, and he said, yes, please. There is a bucket or a box at the back door of the forestry department over on Fontaine Natural Resources Drive at the Fontaine Research Park. And I think they'd be happy to have, oak tree acorns as well. Although, we have very few acorns in our house our yard this year, the squirrels, I guess, are eating them all. So that's that. And, also, I was very excited to attend in a lovely drizzly rain because I think rain is a good omen. The Southwood dedication. And,
Mike, I'm sure we'll talk about this more, but I won't say it in just a second. The 25 families who moved into their new homes and also the dedication of the Monacan Tribute Park and the presence of the tribal leaders who were there was very, very meaningful for everyone who attended. Last, the Shenandoah Shenandoah, Augusta Waynesboro MPO and the Thomas Jefferson planning district MPO met together yesterday, and I have shared with you some packets because the programming, was so incredible. And this the slide decks that are in the packets,
I think, will be, very informative to lots of projects that are going on. And I'll leave the nitty gritty details to Ned. Thank you very much. Thank you. Supervisor Calloway? Nitty gritty details. Well, I can report on that during the committee time, I suppose. Okay. That's fine. See that I don't, I wasn't planning on getting on that, so I have no announcements. Okay. Thank you. I'll just add to to supervisor Malek. She and I both attended the groundbreaking for Afton Scientific on Monday, which was attended also by the governor and lieutenant governor. And I bring a special mention because, there was a shout out by,
mister Thorpe from Affton to our community development department for their excellent work in helping with the planning and process permit, all that. It goes into that, and I I was, it was a it was a good moment. Also, of course, as I've been doing lately, letting everybody reminding everybody that the, Savannah Solid Waste and Recycling Center is in the process of the fall cleanup, and that means that this Saturday, they're collecting appliances. And next Saturday, October 11, they're collecting tires. Also, October 11 and October 12 is the Batesville Apple butter weekend,
which is always a lot of fun. I look forward to that. And that is all. Anyone has anything else? And, we will turn next to, proclamations and recognitions. And first up, we're very pleased to have recognition from VAICO, achievement award of the Albemarle County Pharmacy Project. And this is introduced by Greg Harder, Director of Communications, Virginia Association of Counties. Welcome, Mr. Hart. Gage. Thank you, Chair Andrews, members of the Board. My name is Gage Harder with the Virginia Association of Counties. My distinct pleasure today to present, the VACO Achievement Awards.
For the benefit of your constituents who, aren't familiar with the Virginia Association of Counties, VACO has existed since 1934 to serve and support your efforts as county officials. We support counties in many ways. First and foremost is through our advocacy efforts, with the state legislature and, at the federal level. We also serve counties through educational programs, member services, and communications. In 02/2003, we established our Achievement Award program, recognizing counties that have adopted innovative approaches to providing public services and identifying programs that
could serve as models, for other counties to, emulate. Today, I'm proud to present Albemarle with an achievement award. Just a few, notes. This is our twenty third year of the program. We received a 155 entries. That broke the record of a 145, which was set last year. We selected 57 of those entries as winners from 33 counties. So it remained, pretty competitive. It's only 36% of entries were were, selected as winners. Albemarle County has won, 10 achievement awards since 02/2003.
You've done your heavy lifting in the last five years. You've won four of the last five years. So, you're turning up. I am going to turn it over to Fire Chief Eggleston to talk about the pharmacy project. Fire Chief? Welcome, Chief Eggleston. Good afternoon, board. Dan Eggleston, chief of fire rescue. Yeah. We really appreciate this. I I wanna say, first of all, I'm I'm here standing in today for for deputy chief Puckett, who really was the person who notified us that, hey. This is coming, and then we should get ahead of it very quickly. As you all know, med administration is a is a cornerstone to our EMS system.
Without that, you know, it would it would cripple us. We were on about 20,000 calls a year. Most of those are being EMS. So it was important for us to to not only maintain that system, but also look at this as an opportunity to try to reengineer some activities that we could do. So, well, I'm very appreciative of chief Puckett, to notify us, and really even he had some designs going into this, what he thought would be really good, for our system. You know, the power of this project really resulted in the collaboration that we had led by
our PS and P because it involved finance, procurement, legal, FEZ, and because we had to construct rooms and distribution process, we had to procure some very expensive machines. We had to come up with policies and procedures to ensure that we not only procured the the medication, but also found a way to make sure we manage it because many of these things that we carry are a controlled substance. So we're very lucky. In fact, we have, on staff, firefighter, Sean, here in our audience who's a a well seasoned firefighter paramedic who stepped up and, agreed to help us,
manage this project. And I will tell you that it's working very well. We had a few small kinks, but we we didn't miss a beat. And, I'm really appreciative of of everyone's leadership in this. To me, this is a is a great showcase of how we can come together and solve a rather difficult problem in a short period of time. I'm also grateful for VAECO too. What a wonderful association to, I think, taking your time out to come out and thank us and recognize us is really appreciated. That's a heavy one. Be careful. It's heavy. Thank you so much. Appreciate that. Thank you. At the moment,
I'll ask if the supervisors have comments. We'll start with supervisor Lapisto Ferley. Available? You're here now. We can see you. Okay. Yes. I had to get my, mic back on. What an honor for a police chief and for our county as a whole. I'm just so proud of the award from VAECO. Thank you for the recognition, and, what a great organization. Thank you. Thank you. Supervisor Pritchard? We really appreciate the honor, and I think it's not lost on anyone here, the incredible work and the incredible talent that we have in our public safety team.
So not surprised, but always always a delight to be able to to honor the team that we've built here in Albemarle County. Supervisor, Miguel. Thank you for coming and presenting us in person. We really appreciate it. And I just wanna say that once again, our staff has made us look really good. So thank you very much, Dan and everybody on the team. We really appreciate it very much. And, and I'm really proud that Alamo County has been winning a number of these awards. Yes. Yes. That's pretty cool for our citizens. It's a benefit for our citizens. All these awards represent programs that benefit our citizens.
So thank you. And and part of our visit is we like to spend some money in your county, so I'm gonna get some lunch after this. Very good. We'll text you some places we think you should go. Thank you very much. In the rollout to the changes in the drug box laws at the state level, what I heard at VACO board meetings was the terrible burden that's placed on smaller communities who did not have a capable staff and a communication among departments able to jump in and do this in a very, very short period of time. So I'm so grateful for all of your work,
and thank you for the recognition. Thank you. Supervisor Connolly? Yeah. Thank you for being here, Don, to present the award and also to, you know, my word of appreciation to chief Ekelston and all those who he represented today. Sometimes, obviously, local government may be fair to say we don't turn things around quickly, but the fact that there are times when we do and we recognize a problem here to pull that off. So that's a credit to our to our staff. So thank you very much to everybody that was involved. And let's add my, appreciation for your being here and for the staff and all this great work. And, yes, to do to do something quickly,
efficiently, that's that's especially gratifying. So thank you very much. Appreciate what you do. Thank you. Enjoy your lunch. Bye, Jay, please. Board, this brings us to a second proclamation, this one recognizing National four H Week. And, this is being read as a motion by Supervisor Malek. Thank you. And I see lots of four h'ers in the audience, so I'm very glad they have come. I move adoption of this proclamation recognizing National four h Week. Whereas, October 2025 is National four h Week in The United States, and more than 1,800
students aged five to 19 are involved in four h in Albemarle County and the city of Charlottesville. Whereas, Albemarle sorry. Virginia Cooperative Extension System conducts four h programs throughout the state land grant universities, Virginia Tech, Virginia State, with the mission to help young people acquire knowledge, develop skills, form attitudes, which will help them become self directed, productive members of society. And whereas four h addresses issues facing youth wherever they live in inner cities, suburbs, rural communities, helps break barriers by focusing on learning by doing,
building self esteem, leadership, and citizenship skills, and focuses on critical issues such as protecting the environment and provides programs on food and nutrition, science and technology, natural resources, substance abuse prevention, animal and plant sciences, career education, community pride, citizenship, and leadership. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed that we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby recognize Sunday, October 5 through Saturday, 10/11/2025 as National four h Week and encourage community youth and families to participate fully
in the wide range of available programs and activities Albemarle Charlottesville four h provides. Signed this first day of October twenty twenty five, Jim Andrews, chair. Second. We have a motion from supervisor Malek, second from supervisor McKeel. Without objection, the court will call the roll. Malek? Yes. Miss McKeel? Yes. Mister Pruitt? Aye. Mister Andrews? Yes. Mister Galloway? Yes. Miss Lupista Kirtley? Aye. Great. Thank you. Thanks, Vincent. Welcome. And I understand that we have, mister Sam Leach, extension agent for a chief development of the Albemarle Charlottesville,
Virginia Cooperative Extension here to accept this. Thank you. So I'm Sam, and this is Sarah Brown. She also works with us here in four h here in Albemarle County. And we're super happy to be here today with you all. We have a few things just to share with you. Thank you. Would you adjust your mic so we can hear you really clearly? Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members of the Albemarle County Board Of Supervisors. On behalf of Albemarle County four h, we wanna thank you for your continued support of youth in our community. Because of your investment, our four h'ers are not only ready for life, they are beyond ready to lead,
to serve, and to thrive. This past year, Albemarle Charlottesville four h continues to experience growth. We had an increase of 26% in our enrollment in our year round four h clubs and a 60% increase in our summer four h camp program. Four h is gaining momentum in Albemarle County. We've expanded our embryology program, that's hatching baby chicks, to more schools and introducing new programs like a livestock leadership educational program and financial literacy programs. What sets four h apart is our blend of hands on learning,
mentorship, community connection, and the university connections of Virginia Tech and Virginia State University. Youth do not just study leadership, science, and agriculture. They live it, applying their skills to real world challenges with the support of caring adult mentors. Our community partners help us make this possible. We work closely with Charlottesville City Schools, Albemarle County Public Schools, private schools, extension master gardener programs, and extension master naturalists, Virginia Career Works, and James Monroe Highland, just to name a few. Together, these partners provide opportunities for youth to serve,
grow, and lead. In a time when so many young people feel uncertain about the future, four h provides a place where it's fun to try, it's safe to fail, and it's possible to grow. With your continued support, we're building a generation that's not just ready for tomorrow, but beyond ready to shape it. Thank you so much for your support. Doctor. Thank you very much. I'm sure supervisors will have comments. And we'll start with supervisor Capisto Curley. K. Great. Oh. I have one. Thank you. The supervisor Capisto Curley? I'm I'm here.
Okay. It's such an honor, to be able to give out this proclamation because, I know the Rivanna four h club. I've attended several of their events, at Grace Church, where my favorite part was the rabbit obstacle course race. That's something to watch if you haven't seen it. And also the at the Albemarle County Fair with all the animals there and all the children, the four h members taking care of those animals, showing them. What an opportunity to learn and to grow.
We have a large agricultural community here in Albemarle, and it's great to see that we are encouraging young people to continue, to pursue, this advocacy or to continue to pursue this on behalf of all the other farmers that are working hard because they wanna see the young people grow up and become part of the farm community. So thank you very much, and congratulations. You deserve it. Thank you. Thank you. Supervisor Pruitt? Thank you.
You know, I'm I love to share a story when I think it's relevant. And my first interaction with, four h in Albemarle County was when I was, you know, I was doing some political tabling at the Albemarle County Fair. And it was very early in the morning, and a woman came up with her her daughter, maybe mid teens, and she said, hey. I have to go. My daughter has an allergic condition, and we need someone a trusted adult here, and I don't know anyone. And you're a politician, so you have to be trustworthy. Because otherwise, it's a scandal. So here's her allergic conditions, and she's going to follow you around until her parents can get back.
So I just had a a young woman who was there showing ducks, kind of attached at my hip for several hours because she had been assigned to me, and I learned so much about the way that this had shaped her life and her childhood and her extracurricular experience. I learned a lot about ducks, got to pet one, which is surprisingly soft and pleasant to pet. Would have never guessed. Became a big duck fan that day. But the thing that struck me most was just the way that four h really helped shape people's lives. Right? As a young person, especially a young person,
like, growing up country, like, a lot of people in Almirall County do, the thing you need is just something to be part of your life. Right? You don't wanna be sitting at home. You don't want to be going to school, and then that's the end of your day. Four h gives people some structure, some outlets for their energy, a way to be a nerd in a different way, nerd about ducks, a nerd about rabbits. And I just think that's a really rich thing to provide in people's lives, and thank y'all for the work you do. Thank you. Thank you. Supervisor McKeel. Great story, Mike. And I'm just thrilled that you found someone who found finds politicians trustworthy.
That is refreshing. I think we're all trustworthy, but it's refreshing to say, here is someone from the public say that. And congratulations. I'm really thrilled that the four h clubs are building momentum in this community. As a former school board member, I remember watching the interest sort of go away to some degree, and it's really great over the last decade that you all are getting back to that. I would encourage you to take a look in October after we approve AC 44, our comp plan, because there's lots in the comp plan right now about agriculture and where we hope
this community will go with agriculture, farming. So it might be of interest for you all to take a look at that chapter. But in the meantime, it's great to see all those kids. Would you raise your hand for everybody? The four h there you go. That's great. Lots of green shirts and and folks. So we love it when young people come to our meetings. So thank you very much for your work with them. Thank you. Sure. Supervisor Malcolm? Thank you. And, hopefully, this counts for a citizenship program too. There you go. When my elder daughter was nine, she was part her heifer,
Hildrethra heifer was at state fair with part of a class. And you're absolutely right that nothing grounds you more during times of stress than having to do chores, whether it's five degrees or a 100 degrees. And I always feel like quite a survivor when I've been out there taking care of my animals regardless of the weather. And during COVID and whatever, I think people who had those responsibilities were able to sort their brains out a whole lot easier than folks who had lots more time on their hands, let's put it that way, and more more time to worry. I love the,
it's fun to try, safe to fail because that's farming. Every year is different. Even if you think you know what to do after fifty years, this year is different than last year, and we all have to be nimble and figure out how to change our processes. So I think it's really important. The Envirothon is something I'm also really thrilled about being a science teacher for elementary kids for years and years. And the financial literacy, if you're gonna raise any kind of livestock for the fair process and sell it, you've gotta learn all about the finances and how to pay the the fee and how to do all those other things in hopes of having a nickel at the
end. So thank you for your leadership with all these young people. Take care, and I'll bring you your when you're done, I'll bring you take this around, whoever's next. Supervisor Galloway. I appreciate in the what stood out to me in the proclamation was learning by doing and then followed immediately to building self esteem. You know, learning by doing, we just think of hands on things, but we're applying abstract thought and a lot of logic and knowledge that's happening from an academic realm to that hands on piece. And there's nothing that builds self esteem better than failing and making mistakes and learning
that that's part of the learning process. So the fact that you all are providing a safe place to fail and reinforcing, to building or, creating or, what's the word, unforming self esteems that, yeah, mistakes are part of this process. And, I mean, how boring would it be if we didn't make mistakes or we didn't fail at some things as we as we were learning to do things? So really appreciate that that's part of the focus that you all are there, and appreciate that these kids are probably more engaged in the program because that's part of their process. Thank you. Thank you.
And I'll add my gratitude for the program. My wife, grew up on a farm and tells the story of her pet bull that she raised until it got a little too big for her and all the other animals that, were part of the program. And, to learn that their enrollment's up, more people are involved is really good news. So thank you. Okay. And I believe supervisor Malek has the proclamation to present. So Thank you. Board, this brings us to Item seven, public comment on matters previously considered or currently pending before the Board other than scheduled
public hearings. And, vice chairman Kiel will read the rules and introduce the speakers. Alright. The rules first. During the time set aside for public comment on matters previously considered or currently pending before the board, individuals may address the board of supervisors. 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. Timekeeping is conducted through a timer and light system at the podium. The green light will go on when you begin to speak, 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'll 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, please state your name and, if you live in Almore 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. If 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,
and do not speak from your seat or out of turn. All comments are live streamed, recorded, and published on the Alamar County website. And with that, we have 10 speakers signed up, and our first speaker, is Tom Olivier. And Tom Loach, you're gonna be the next speaker. If you wanna come down front, we'll just kinda keep it moving a little bit. So Tom Olivier is first. Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Tom Olivier, a resident of the Samuel Miller District. I'm here to speak about revisions to the county's data center ordinance.
We should be concerned about the number of and spread of data centers in Virginia. Data centers make noise and emit gases that reduce the quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods. The AI bubble may burst. Quantum computing may make them obsolete. Data centers also consume vast quantities of energy. Dominion Energy's peak summer energy demand is projected to double by 2045. According to the PEC, most of the increase will be driven by new data centers.
And guess what? Ratepayers will foot the bill for the electricity grid updates required for these new data centers. Most importantly, much of the new needed electricity generation will be provided by burning fossil fuels. Already, climate change is a threat to humanity and the rest of the biosphere. Data center growth in Virginia will undermine our efforts to become carbon neutral and worsen climate change. Given the many negative consequences and risks surrounding data centers, caution in any new ordinance seems required.
Surely, allowing large data centers by right in the county is reckless. At least a special use permit should be required for any proposed large data center coupled with an analysis of the climate and other environmental impacts. For a moment, I'd like to consider the development of this ordinance in a broader perspective. At the recent work session on the county climate program, some of you expressed concern that members of the public doubted the county's commitment to climate action. Let me explain why. The Rivanna Futures project was hatched and approved by the county seemingly without any consideration
of its likely large climate impacts. Ditto for the eight mile military industrial complex you're promoting on 29 North. And this data center ordinance was brought forward with no analysis of its climate consequences. If you want us to regard the county as committed to effective climate action, require analysis and weighting of climate impacts in development related decisions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Tom Loach? Good afternoon. Tom Loach, president of Crozet. With regard to AC44, the question I would like to ask is why did the county feel it necessary
to employ an outside consulting firm to complete a land use review when a similar review was completed in 2022? I'd like to also point out from the report that the consultants used the value of 58% in three instances representing the total number of approved percentage of the maximum number of units allowed and recommended in the comp plan. If this is true, didn't we recently find that when all factors are considered, the percentage is actually 70%? This being the case, did the consultants use erroneous data in their decision making process and conclusions?
There is one area in the consultant's report that I do agree with, and that's the data relating to rural development. I have already presented data to the Board regarding the county's land use subsidy program and the fact that since 1991, it has cost residents approximately a quarter of a billion dollars with at least $65,000,000 over the last five years. Yet there is not one word about this program anywhere in either the consultant report or the entire AC44 document. It's not that I don't support rural preservation.
I do. It's not that I'm willing to pay for rural preservation. I am. Unfortunately, the fact is the consultant report shows that an average of 17% of development is occurring in the rural area each year. When any of you invest your money in the stock with an annual 17% loss rate, the simple truth is land use is not protective but equates to a very expensive land rental program for rural rural residents. Make no mistake if this issue is not debated within the board during the AC forty four deliberations, then it must be construed to the public to be a sign of acceptance by
the board of the program at a continuing cost of millions of dollars to the taxpayers. In a recent podcast, Ron Tubbs reported that a total of 400 comments were submitted to regarding AC 44. This from a population of a 112,000 residents in Albemarle County. What should have been done to ensure adequate input and statistical relevance on important AC44 topics was for the county to employ the UVA Center for Research and to conduct a series of questionnaires sent to each household to ensure adequate input.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Neil Williamson is our next speaker followed by Christina Libre Essel Essel? Essel? Anyway, Neil, you're next. Good afternoon. Neil Williamson. I serve as the president of the Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization, focused on local governments of Central Virginia. Last night, I gave AC I gave the planning commission our thoughts on AC 44, and there are several areas that I think, the document fails. I'll leave those for your review later. One area that I think is worthy of note is an opportunity for you.
Staff presented and the board endorsed and the planning commission subsequently succumbed to or followed your lead, to not make any significant changes to your future land use map. They consolidated some topics and made say, changed some colors, but didn't change the uses, didn't change any of the comp plan designations really of any significance. It's keeping what was in place in 2015. Had a discussion, with someone yesterday evening about this, and they said, the board can do that anytime. They don't have to wait five years.
I wonder, could you? Could you think about the future land use map, and does 2015 accurately represent what you wanna do now? There's nothing that says you can't consider it. And, perhaps, taken out of the comp plan discussion, that discussion would be clearer. I I know you've got a lot of choices and decisions here. When we talk about data centers, when we talk about all of these choices and decisions, staff does a very good job providing, the balance of of things. And I'm I'm hopeful that you could take the flum out of the comp plan
process and simply look at the map, work with your planning commission, and get it done in twenty four months. Your plan your planning commission and staff took, I believe, four plus years on the last comp plan. Well, obviously, that's too big a bite. Let's focus in. Do the flum now. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. Thank you. Thank you. Christina, and I apologize. I thought that was part of your name. My fault. It's probably a fault of my handwriting. This is just the microphone. Just do. Thank you. It's good. Alright. Good afternoon, members of the board of supervisors.
My name is Christina Liebre, and I'm an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. I appreciate the opportunity to provide these brief comments regarding phase two of the data center regulations. Thank you and county staff for your leadership and engagement with the public through this process. We wish to again express our strong support for the current requirement that data centers over 40,000 square feet go through the special use permit process. Data centers threaten significant disruption to communities and harm to the environment. An SUP requirement ensures that the public has the opportunity to weigh in on these
uniquely impactful projects. It ensures that you and your colleagues have the opportunity to review proposals on a case by case basis and approve only those that adequately minimize harms to residents and the environment. And it ensures that you are able to maintain oversight of aggregate impacts from these projects. Should the county decide to pause consideration of the currently proposed data center amendments, we urge that any future reconsideration only include adding performance standards. Further, we urge that the current SUP requirement for data centers over 40,000
square feet be maintained indefinitely. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Our next two speakers are Doug Holiday and then Dick Payne, if you'll also come down. So the first speaker is Doug Holiday. Good afternoon. My name is Doug Holliday. I live in the Sam Miller, Samuel Miller District. I'm here today with my friend and partner, Dick Payne. Together, we are owners of Sweet Spot of Albemarle LLC, which is in the Sam Miller District. We are addressing Parcel 7548 that is located Southwest of the interchange of US 64
And US 29. It borders the Seag property, which is to the East, and the future Hedgerow Parkland, which is to the West. We are here to ask you to consider an adjustment to the parcel's designation from industrial purple to community mixed use pink on the AC 44 future land use map. We think this adjustment to a less intensive designation is consistent with the County's vision for a variety of desired uses. Community mixed use is more appropriate for this area than uses supported by the current
more intensive industrial designation. By way of background, in 2015, Deschutes Brewery of Bend, Oregon had an interest in purchasing property to build an East Coast brewery. At the time, there was a shortage of industrial land. The land use map required adjustment of our property. We agreed with the county's request for an industrial designation on the land use map. As events unfolded, the shoots did not come to Albemarle County, but our parcel is still designated for industrial use on the comprehensive map plan.
For the last ten years, there has not been one indication of interest for industrial use for this property. However, there has been and continues to be developing use interest, for this property for other uses. We are not asking for zone rezoning of the property, but for an adjustment to the future land use map. This modification would support a future zoning application for a mixed use community. Adjusting the parcel's designation as part of AC 44 advances the county's goals and avoids
unnecessary delay. It also preserves opportunity for public engagement on the details on how the property would be developed during a future zoning application. I'll now let my partner, Dick, address Arash Chanel for the adjustment. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Doug. I'm Dick Payne. And, I wanna first thank Chairman Andrews as well as all the members of the Board of Supervisors for your time today. I'm going to briefly summarize the reasons we believe our suggested adjustment in the future
land use map makes sense. We do want to emphasize, as Doug did, but, again, we are not asking for a zoning change. But our property, we are only asking for industrial to community use adjustment on the future land use map. The adjustment from industrial to community mixed use makes sense for the following reasons. First, the industrial designation is outdated. Our land was first as orig first designated industrial in 2015 in an effort to attract Deschutes Brewery, which went to Roanoke,
as Doug mentioned. There has been no interest from industrial sources since 2015. Second, the supply of industrially designated land on the future land use map has increased substantially since 2015 to include large tracts of acreage at North Fork, Rivanna Futures, and other locations. Our parcel is not competitive with these other locations, which are larger, have flatter land, and easier access to existing roads and utilities. Third, there is a community benefit to our land being designated community mixed use.
This designation supports a wide variety of uses including commercial, office, retail, light industrial, R and D, residential, and institutional. In other words, everything except heavy industrial for which it's designated. Fourth, this adjustment would make our land compatible with the Sikh properties proposed community mixed use development project, which is contiguous to our parcel. Fifth, there are locational advantages to a designation adjustment. Community mixed use is more appropriate than industrial at the edge of the development area.
Mixed use at our location could also provide opportunities to integrate with CIGS sidewalks, trail networks, shops, and employment centers. Finally, this map adjustment as part of AC 44 supports supports the county's goals of efficient future development and a diversified tax base. Importantly, it allows for active public engagement during any future rezoning application. At last night's planning commission meeting, there seemed to be some support for this adjustment. We are hopeful the board will also see the merits of this proposal.
Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Our next two speakers, Brian Carlton and then Emily Smith. Welcome. Wow. Good afternoon. Energy. Thank you for allowing me to speak to you for a minute. My name is Brian Carlton. I'm just a resident of the county. I came from Lynchburg about eight and a half years ago. I love this county. It's wonderful. The trails, the trees, the forest, I love running on the trails and biking on the trails. And I when I think about the data centers that possibly could come to our
county, it really does concern me. So I thank you for pausing the proposal, which would, require, buildings larger than 40,000 square feet to be, reviewed, a special review of those types of buildings. So I fully support that, and I hope possibly you can make that permanent for the future. Because recently, I flew out of Dulles Airport and over Loudoun County, and I see tons of large white buildings. I know they're using up a lot of water,
a lot of electricity, and I would like to see our county I mean, I'm not against development, but I think we really have to look at these case by case and see how they're going to affect our county. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is Emily. Emily Smith. Welcome. Good afternoon. My name is Emily Smith. I'm a housing attorney with the Legal Aid Justice Center. I was here to make a statement about the the UC 44 process, and specifically about affordable housing. Affordable housing is a urgent issue that's impacting residents' health and safety. As I'm sure you know,
rents continue to rise in the county, causing homelessness and displacement. Over the past six years, rents have risen over 35%. The economic impact on lower income communities is often dire. Supportive services are decreasing, food benefits have been cut, and many families are losing health coverage. Affordable housing, preservation, and expansion are the best tools available to prevent a crisis. We need AC forty four's housing strategies to be as ambitious as possible. We encourage you to adopt the points that we've separately submitted in an email that, include implement strategies to support low income homebuyers with the support of community partners,
a mandatory inclusionary zoning policy, a, increased by right density allowance for the inclusion of affordable housing. And as we all know, a barrier to affordable housing solutions is voice funding. In In addition to your work on AC 44, we commend your significant progress in this area, including the dedicated revenue stream. We're looking forward to hearing if the percentage of tax dollars can be increased in the coming budget year. Thank you. Thank you. And our next two speakers, Saive of Flynn and Randy, and I think this is Fetterman. There you go.
Okay. Welcome. Hi. Hi. Hi. Cybil Flynn. I'm a Climate Justice Policy Manager with the Community Climate Collaborative. The Community Climate Collaborative is very glad to see the staff recommending a pause in the development of the data center ordinance. As Bill Fritz accurately points out in today's letter addressed to supervisors that was attached to the agenda, there is no one standard set of requirements that would address every by right application of data centers, which have drastically differing resource needs depending on the use case. We already know that data center development is directly responsible for proposals to build out
15 gigawatts of new gas fired power plants across Virginia, which is the data center capital of the world. As I wrote to the supervisors on Monday, that data center driven gas infrastructure build out is threatening Albemarle residents even as we speak. Just over the county line with Fluvanna, right by Scottsville, an enormous 1.5 gig gigawatt gas fired power plant has been proposed by the Nebraska based Chonaska in Fluvanna. This plant would more than double the existing one gigawatt gas plant that's been operating there for about twenty years. If built, it will further lock our region into decades of additional fossil fuel pollution with impacts
on air quality, water resources, climate goals, and public health that directly affect Albemarle residents. The Southern Environmental Law Center estimates that the health impact costs from the proposed plant would be $113,600,000.0 annually, rising to 21.1 annually by 2040 for accumulative cost of $270,000,000 by 02/1940. That will unavoidably include County residents whose board of supervisors is not being included in this decision making process. At a town hall in Truvanna County last night, residents nearby the existing gas plant reported increased increased rates of cancers,
asthma, unmitigated noise, and disregard by this multibillion dollar privately held company, Tonasca. C three understands that our board of supervisors is not involved in improving this enormous gas plant, but we do ask that you consider reaching out to your peers in Kluvaniuk County Board of Supervisors before next week's October 7 planning commission meeting to express your alarm on behalf of your constituents who will unavoidably be impacted by this if it goes ahead. Across the Commonwealth, the health of the small communities is being directly threatened by the fossil fuel build out merely to support data center growth.
We thank the board and staff for its keen attention to the climate and environmental impacts of data center growth in the county and ask you all to stay vigilant and think both long term and broad scale. Thank you. Thank you. Randy? There you are. Okay. Last but not least. Good afternoon, and thank you for letting me speak. My name is Randy Fleetman. I live in the Scottsville District. For thirty three years, I was a foreign service officer. Environment science, technology, and health was one of my areas, and economic development was another. Thank you very much for pausing the consideration of the data center ordinance.
I strongly oppose the idea of allowing larger centers to get by without a special use permit. My colleagues have already described most of the problems, but I wanna focus on something else indeed. These centers all have huge diesel generators as backups. These generators have to be tested on a regular basis because what good is a backup that doesn't work when you need it? The neighbors get to hear these things clattering away, and they get to smell the fumes from these as well. These things these centers do not create jobs. They are not an economic development. Off there's some construction jobs and then a few people are left on staff. The claims that these things boost the economy are wrong.
What they do do is increase the demand for electricity and our bills as we pay for the infrastructure. And as one of my colleague pointed out, you can't even trust these things to go up. They're very, there's a lot of assumptions being done. Some of these are being proposed by real estate companies who wanna get in on it. And if their proposal fails and Dominion has already spent the money to build the infrastructure, we get the bills. So I strongly, continue to think that the special use permit is a good way to have us consider all the implications of any data center being based here in Albemarle. When I lived in Fairfax County,
I biked along the Washington Old Dominion Rail Trail for forty years, and I got to watch the growth of the data centers, which now outnumber the horse farms. That is not the character I want for Albemarle County, and I hope it's not what you want either. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate the comments, board. This brings us to item eight, which is the consent agenda. I understand we're calling the January. Are there any other proposed changes to the consent agenda? If not, then I'm looking for a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended.
So moved. Second. We have a motion from supervisor McKeel with a second from supervisor Malek. Without objection, if the clerk will call the roll. Ms. Malek? Yes. Ms. McKeel? Yep. Mr. Pruitt? Aye. Mr. Andrews? Yes. Mr. Galloway? Yes. Ms. Lupisto Kirtley? Aye. Thank you. And this brings us to our first presentation for the afternoon, the VDOT quarterly report presented by Carrie Shepherd, Charlottesville resident, the administrator. Welcome. Always good to have you. Yep. Second. Good afternoon, mister chairman, members of the board. Good afternoon. Not
not really sure how that works. See quick. Usually, ten seventy pound. That was right here. No. It's not there. How would you do that? Okay. Let's see this. Is it this? It's not this. Yeah. It is that. Yes. Okay. Let's see if we can yank this up. There we go on that. There we are. Let me do this. Oh, that should work right. A little, sideways, but don't be nothing. It's good. This? There you go. Excellent. Okay. Alright. So good afternoon. My name is Carrie Shepherd from VDOT here to give the quarterly presentation. Carrie, you're soft spoken. Just make sure you speak into the mic so everybody can hear you.
Okay. How's that? Is that better? So my first slide, of course, outlines preliminary engineering updates. A couple I'd like to point out on this slide are the we're at 29 shared juice path. We put that out for advertisement, but we received bids that were too high. That is going back out for advertisement on November 12. So we're hoping to get, bids that are more in line with with our estimates after we after we get those bids back in, early next year. For the Exit 107 Park and Ride project, that advertisement, is currently out. We hope to have bid openings in December.
And then our couple other projects are still in progress. The Fifth Street Strip and hub and trails, the 25020 Intersection, and improvements along the Pantops Corridor. Our advertisement dates are spring twenty twenty six. And then jumping down to our Route 702 Fontaine Avenue replacement bridge over Morey Creek, that project is going to construction. It is starting October 7 and expected expected to be complete 2027. During that time, it will be a single lane with temporary traffic signals on either side.
Moving on to our design build bundles. The last element for our hydraulic bundle is that pedestrian bridge. We expect completion October 31, and we are currently planning a ribbon cutting on November 13. So that's a pretty big pretty big milestone in that project. Our next bundle is the four roundabouts in the Belvedere green tea. Currently, the 24250 Roundabout is under construction. The old Lynchburg Fifth Street roundabout is under review and right away plans, and the remaining at with the remaining elements, the limited access control chains that I mentioned at the last meeting for the John
Warner Parkway, Ryah Road roundabout was approved by the CTB, and that was just a minor shift of alignment. That was not a major change. And then last, our final bundle, which includes the Hydraulic District Avenue roundabout, the Fontaine Avenue interchange improvements, including the Fontaine Street, scaping that goes into the city of Charlottesville. We have the public hearing on March 22. Design bill request for proposals is issued to the short listers that was issued on June 27. Technical proposals are due today, and price proposals are due November 3. The CTP award is still anticipated for December.
As far as our rural rustic projects, made a lot of progress this year. Glendale Road phase one and two is complete. Sutherland Road is complete. Stony Point Pass is complete. And Starlight Road is under construction, and we hope to have that surface, down before the before the end of the season. So that one will soon also be complete. Onto our construction activities. I'm gonna skip the first one for a moment and just jump to the second one. Route 712 Plank Road, that was reconstruction of a headwall. That project is complete. It it ran a little late, past the August 28,
deadline, but that project is also now complete. And then back up to our 601 Old Ivy Road bridge project, as I'm sure everybody is aware, that bridge was hit on Monday. We had to close the bypass, shortly afternoon, and we were luckily able to reopen the bypass around 06:45 that evening. The bypass does remain open. However, Old Ivy Road is still closed because the bridge did suffer, considerable damage, and we don't know if we can allow or what we can allow to drive across it at this point in time. So we're still doing a lot of, investigation.
We're gonna have to probably do load rating analysis, after with all of repairs to determine when we can open that back up. We have put out a lot of signage, to help motorists understand that Old Ivy is closed. There was additional signage put out just, last night because I think there was some confusion from, citizens or or parents and and teachers and students coming from staff and not realizing that Old Ivy was closed, and it caused a a bit of a bit of a nightmare over there. So we did add more signage to, to help with that. We've also been communicating with as many business partners as we can in the area.
We've talked to we have talked to. We've reached out to UVA. So we're we're trying to figure out a good plan moving forward while this bridge is is shut down completely before we can get a lane back open. And, of course, we are continuing. I've taken the slide out at this point in time, but we continue to respond to citizen requests and calls Mhmm. That come in through our office and through board members. And now I will take any questions and concerns from you. Thank you. We'll go through our order. Supervisor Lupista Kirtley will start us off. Yes. Thank you very much,
for your report. I always look forward to it. And a special thank you for completing Stony Point Pass, especially the extra point two miles. Really appreciate it. And all of our all of our roads are looking good, and you all are really doing a good job. I will say personally, you you and your staff are very responsive to when it when I make any kind of an inquiry or ask questions, you're very responsive. So I thank you very much for that. Thanks again. Thank you. Supervisor Pruett.
Thank you. I just I'm sure I speak for a lot of people in saying that I really appreciate Kel's really quick response on Old IV. Right? That is a major intersection point for a lot of people, and it was a deeply confusing period. And y'all have been handling it with, a lot of a lot of speed and grace for a state level agency that I know gets pulled in a lot of different directions. I also and this is almost more of a kudo it's both a kudos on the vDOT team, but also a kudos on this board's team, this board because I think it it is a good indication of the process we
have is working. The amount of feedback I've received since Glendower finished getting paved, day one, I was getting, like, pictures in my inbox of of that pavement hidden in the streets, and people are ecstatic. And I already have another rural rustic that I've had a whole stack of, handwritten petitions arrive in my mailbox because they saw what happened for Glendale and they said, lord, I've seen what you've done for my neighbors. What can you do for me? Point being, our our approach of of having this resident feedback driven process where we have, you know,
a requirement that local residents actually have that petition, I think is actually delivering what we want it to be, which is is making sure that these projects go to people who really want them and who are really excited to see these rural rustics getting paved. And so I also appreciate the doubt for once we actually had that decision point, actually getting, you know, asphalt on the ground quicker. And the as a kind of closing thing I would mention, I've heard, I have a constituent who who moved into an adjacent property at one of the the, roundabouts that's being constructed,
after some of the initial community outreach that had been done. Right? There was a whole postering session where a lot of, frankly, local landowners came out and expressed some concern about the way their easements were gonna be affected. He acquired it after that. Maybe there's a realtor something happening. Maybe there's some due diligence something happening, but was not aware of this process. And so I guess what I'm just getting is, what what does the kind of shape of ongoing, local stakeholder feedback look like, over the course of these, build cycles for our smart scale projects? Do you which roundabout are we talking about, if I could ask?
I I'm trying to decide if it's worth I I think you would not mind this. It's so we're looking at the, the one on 20, the, 2050, 53. Do I have the right number? I never call advice. The the Thomas Jefferson Parkway. Okay. Yeah. So that one is gonna be the last element that we do, because of the, events that are going on at Monticello. But generally speaking, once we hand the project off to the design builder, they then take it from there. They finish the design. They take over right away. So that's when, communication should be made with that property owner about any needs that they might have
to finish the project. Okay. But if they have any questions, our team, Hal Jones and Will Stowe, would not mind having a conversation with the citizen if he would like more information about that. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Supervisor McKeown? Thank you, Carrie. Probably good timing for you to be here today because, certainly, we had a lot of angst in the community over the Ivy Road Bridge, and you all did a yeoman's job, I must say. As and I also wanna send a shout out to our fire and rescue and police officers who obviously had their world turned upside down as well as our constituents
and residents who were involved in it. I know many people sat for hours in their cars trying to move to wherever they were going. I do find it concerning that there have been three incidences in Central Virginia of feet of trucks hitting bridges over the last several weeks. I mean, 81 is what I'm talking about. But and I recognize that not only is that disrupt disruptive for people traveling, but it's also expensive for VDOT, and it causes a lot of angst for everyone. I don't know if anything can be done about that,
but it does seem like these big trucks are not paying very much attention to the height of their loads. And I don't know if that that probably involves police and monitoring on the on the interstates and these roads, but it is concerning. Three incidents is pretty much within ten days of each other. And I'll just let that stand, but, I do really appreciate the efforts. Is there any Carrie, just thinking about and knowing that whole area of Ivy Road and Old Ivy Road, certainly the businesses along Ivy Road are really struggling now because of the
is there any outreach to Saint Anne's Belfield and trying to alternate times of those schools dismissing that might help? I'm just thinking about it through the lens of trying to address something short term that might actually help. Just something to think about. They did promise us at one time that they would stagger their start and stop times. And and maybe getting back to something like that could help relieve at least some of the traffic if possible. And I really haven't taken time to think get through from from my viewpoint,
but just an observation that might help is outreach to St. Anne's Peltfield. Their parents are stuck in that traffic too. So just saying that and to change the subject completely, the hydraulic 29 package we're completing, which is great, pedestrian bridge, the the roundabout. So we're working our way through all those projects. A project that was not we didn't pursue the project because the bids came in so high on everything. We had to drop the the work that we were gonna do around Angus Road,
which is actually in the city, but but it was originally part of that package. And I like to call it Chicken Row, but everybody has their own description of what that area is, but Angus Road and Chicken Row. My question is, we were told at the time that we withdrew that that pack part of the package, that VDOT would be taking a look at how to get back to that area and come up with another plan. Do you know where that project stands or what the work is that's happening on that? So so that's part of the star study Okay.
Of that quarter. And we did just have a meeting, I think it was last Friday, to talk about the interchange and that section in particular. So right now, it's it's conversations presenting the concepts, that the engineers have come up with and talking through those to just to just, you know, get different stakeholders' opinions on what might work, what could work, just brainstorming essentially based on these concepts. Then the consultant's gonna go back and refine those and then come back, and we're gonna have another meeting about it. So, yeah, that that area is part of the conversation. That's wonderful just to know that it's in conversation right now and some design work
is being done, and I'm sure that public process will be included in all those neighborhoods. I get all that. I just had lost track of it in my mind and it's really critical. And we just wanted to know where we stood on it. So thank you very much. And I really appreciate all your hard work and around the latest incident with our traffic, fiasco. I hope we catch the gentleman who hit the bridge and then took off. Yeah. Thank you so much. Hit and run. Yes. President Ballard. Wow. I thought that he was right there. Thank you very much.
So I have a couple of questions for you to get back to me when you can because I it's probably outside. Someone texted me today to say, can you find out what the status is of sign removal on Ridge Road? So that's one question because I know we've been going back and forth, and I thought the agreement was to take down the ones which were there. Secondly, last night at a business people's meeting about the Square And Plaza in Crozet, there was, again, question raised about moving the light, which is currently at the square in Crozet Avenue, down to Library Avenue, which has been discussed for about fifteen years.
And And I think once the square work was done and the write in, write out was in effect as it is now, that, that would happen. So that will be crossing your desk at some point, and I'd love to know what the deal is with that too. Lots of commendations about the work at the six eighty two forty two fifty. I think everyone's so excited that something is happening. And, actually, the way that traffic is diverted now is such an improvement of that being able to see to get out that it's really working very, very well. So, that's just grand. After, many years of getting what what Sean Nelson called it a legacy project going yesterday
at the MPO, that was fun. After many years of hearing about the Fontaine Streetscape the Strontaine Interchange business, this is a I guess, it's just filtering into my brain that somehow now this is linked with the city streetscape project. Yes. That was theirs, and is that impacting the budget and the ability to go forward with the highway part? No. It is not. Separate money. Okay. Very good. That's important. And many with the chicken row issue that's already been raised, I think many people over the years have said this would be such a great
place for a parallel access road, where if you wanna be in that section, you get off at the Texaco and you go on down and because everybody who is concerned about safety, including myself, goes to the far left lane and putt putts down there to avoid all the people jumping in and out in front of each other because it is truly scary. But that's all I had. Thank you. Thank you. Supervisor Calabic? Good to see you, Carrie. Thank you. Somebody called it the chicken strip the other day. I thought, oh, that's a great pun. You said Chicken Row. Chicken Strip. I bet it's the Chicken Row. But, I mean, I thought we said Chicken Row too.
I realized the last time you were here for the quarterly update, I was like, well, I where are my updates? But on some but I found it in my draft folder that I never actually sent to you. So I was like, well, that's probably why I didn't get any updates because I didn't ask. But I have two, that it's been some time. So the the you probably could guess. The Hillsdale Drive, the the modular roundabout. Do you have any updates on on where we stand with that at this point? I do. So at this point in time so we don't think we have enough time to get this done by the end of this year. So what we're looking at is planning,
to implement it in the construction year next year in spring. So we're gonna do do the rest of our planning and prep work over the winter so that we're ready to go. It's essentially gonna be pavement markings, delineators, new signage, and the last element that we are still determining is what we're actually gonna use in the center. There's a couple different options, so we're just trying to kinda weigh pros and cons with those. Great. And I don't know that I knew that this end of this year was even a possibility. So I knew the funding was waiting until July 1. So I'm glad to hear just a a schedule, and that that's gonna move forward. And the only other one,
and and if this one, you need to get back to me on that is great. It's just the Penn Park Road, the speed limit, the 35 to the 25 with all the curves. I think at this point, my con while my concern was there with the, opening now of Rial Point and, you know, 300 plus units coming online there, I suspect the pedestrian activity going into Penn Park is about to increase. And that's been a place where, sidewalk requests have come in, but we don't have a sidewalk that goes all the way into Penn Park. So the speed limit's gonna become of a greater concern to me because of the
what we'll probably see, increase in ped walking, you know, going into that park. So I'd love to get an update on that at some point. Okay. Thank you. And also, I express my gratitude. You've been inundated with questions from me and requests and always been very responsive. And I appreciate the communication that's gone on with respect to Old Ivy Road. You mentioned the Fontaine Maury Creek. Is that a is that you said there's gonna be a light there. Is that detector so that it tells whether somebody's waiting or not and decides who gets through because there's there's massive amounts of traffic at certain times due to the
school, the church, the, The yeah. They'll have to make adjustments based on time of day for for those peak hour times. Yes. Oh, okay. Okay. Good. Thank you. Of course, hitting the bridge alerted us all to critical infrastructure and the fact that there are ramifications all over the inner part of the county, especially, when something like that happens. And I believe Mr. Henry has a comment or? Thanks, Chair Andrews and the board members that have commented. Ms. Sheppard, just wanted to publicly thank you for your staff and the response.
It included representation at a command post that we had a police had, county police. We had city representation there, emergency management, fire rescue. So that level of coordination was critical. And then just more broadly on infrastructure, you know, we have a regional emergency communication center. We have a, you know, a CAD system that really is what is the routing of responses. And and ECC really had to lean in to be updating that system throughout the day, not just because of the closure,
but because of the traffic. So we were able to identify, you know, the most reachable units for any other issues that hurt that occurred. So I know it it was incredibly disruptive to to the community, folks passing through. But I just wanted to publicly thank, BDOT and our public safety folks and ECC for all that they did just to manage us through that, that afternoon and evening. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm not sure whether it'll be sort of a rehash at some point to see if there are any lessons learned or, future actions.
But, I know that will happen and appreciate your efforts. Thank you. Is there anything further? Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Gerry. Okay. Board, this brings us to our next item. For information, data center phase two zoning text and zoning map amendment update presentation led by Mr. Bill Fritz, Development Process Manager. Welcome. Hello. And Amelia. Welcome. Yes. Steve. Hello, and thank you. I'm Bill Fritz with the Community Development Office. I'm going to save you from a PowerPoint presentation today. The, I wanted to give you an update following the August work session that the Board
had on data centers. Just to remind you where we are, in April, the Board of Supervisors adopted what we were, at that time, calling phase one of the data center regulations. And what those regulations did or what those that ordinance did was to, allow data centers up to 40,000 square feet by right in the industrial districts, over 40,000 square feet in the industrial districts by special use permit and of any size in commercial districts by special use permit. And there were some regulations also associated with accessory data centers,
closed loop systems, cooling systems, and generators. What we're doing now, what we're presenting to you today is a recommendation that the county pause its work on the map and text amendments and to just retain the existing regulations. And I want to go in a little bit to what led to that conclusion or that recommendation and what that means and what we'll be doing. After considering the guidance given by the Board of Supervisors in August, we determined that the districts that we were considering for the overlay districts for large
data centers by right were not, for the most part, viable. We've been unable to develop standardized system, standardized regulations or system to allow for administrative review of the environmental impacts and the mitigation of those impacts. We just can't come up with a standardized set of conditions that will take into account all by right applications. As we've continued to do research, data centers and data center design and operations are evolving. We're concerned that any ordinance that we adopt now risks becoming out of date or
that as data centers evolve, we may not have regulations that address those new impacts that they may cause. So, what we're doing is we're recommending allowing those regulations, the regulatory environment to develop. We'll continue to follow the best practices of other jurisdictions. At this time, we don't know what the General Assembly might do in the upcoming legislative session. We'll monitor that and update the board with any regulations that we may need to adopt or talk about to address any legislation that the General Assembly may enact.
I want to point out that the existing ordinance would, or anything over 40,000 square feet and in commercial districts any, would be a special use permit. And that allows for a public input. It's a public process. And it allows for the review to be based on the most up to date information, both by the applicant, what the regulatory environment, best technologies that would be available at the time in the application comes forward. And if any application were approved by the Board of Supervisors, you could impose conditions that would address any of those potential impacts.
Taking all that together, we just believe that right now it'd be best to pause work on this and wait and see, what happens. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. We'll go through our orders starting with supervisor Lupisto Kirtley. Thank you very much, mister Fritz. I really appreciate that. And I, I thank staff for listening to, the board and monitoring of best practices regarding this, regarding data centers. The the science of this changes a lot,
and the fact that we're keeping on top of it and monitoring it is a good thing. But I do believe I totally agree that we do need to take a pause and to see what happens in the future, and what we will what we may or may not do in the future. But I'm very confident with, the approach you staff has suggested. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Supervisor Prit? I would also really want to commend staff for for taking a very sober look at this problem set, for trying,
their their dam bus to get as much actual concrete data in in what I know is a heavily, you know, morally, emotively inflected topic, trying as hard as you can to get, concrete data. And and I think it bears mention, something that maybe you're not in a position to say, but I am, that a big part of why we don't have the data, to make these kinds of decisions, in addition to the fact that it's a moving target, is also that there's just really striking lack of transparency from some of these firms that we're working with. And I think that is something that's important to communicate to the public.
And I I know we've moved past this decision point, but I love picking at a scab. I continue to think with our interim ordinance that is now our final ordinance, that it may have perhaps been more prudent to have a lower threshold just because we do have a lower threshold for the by ride approval than the 40, thousand square feet. Because we do have, as a board, not much working proficiency with these developments, and this would give us the opportunity to actually review them, to actually see the to to peel away a few layers of skin and see
what's going on inside them. And it would also, frankly, give us an opportunity to to have some serious conversations about community exchange and and what the impacts of those are going to be. It it, I think, is worth noting for the public that the university is currently building a a considerable sized data center about 35,000 square feet, just just under the buy right equipment, that we have. We're not gonna get a cent of those tax dollars, and we're not gonna have any input on what it looks like. I I think the board might have been able to you know,
we normally don't have a card to play with payment in lieu of taxes. I think this could have given us a card to play if we had had a lower threshold, and it certainly would have let us understand these a little bit more. So I hope as we continue to noodle around this problem, we might actually consider revisiting our current buy right thresholds. Thank you. Thank you. And, professor McHugh. Yes. I wanna thank Bill and Amelia for bringing this forward and for all the staff and all the work and time. I know that it's it or at least it appears to me from the emails that I've been getting
that people are concerned about the terminology by right. And I'm trying to separate this out right now because I think we're doing exactly the right thing. I appreciate what you're doing. But if we separate out the way we've been discussing this, and I think this goes to other proposals, not just data centers. When we use the word buy right, people think it's by right and there's no no performance standards. I just heard, Southern Environmental Law Center say,
well, you need performance standards. When we approve when something is by right, there are performance standards. Can you speak a little bit to this bill? Because I think there's a misunderstanding in the greater community because it's very confusing. It sounds like you don't have any control over what is done. So let's just talk about that for a few minutes. Sure. And I wanna put data centers aside because I'm not trying to make a case for data centers. I'm just trying to make a case for helping our community better understand terminology and
what we what we're doing. Thank you, and I appreciate that. So, except I'm going to go down the list as I had written them. So, we have accessory data centers. They're by right, they're permitted provided that they meet the requirements of the ordinance. They have accessory to a primary use. They have to be within that that primary use. There's a, they need to be for that individual user's purpose. So it's associate this bill right? We've we've used this building as an example. We operate servers that we have that would qualify as a data center,
but it is within this building, and it provides only county services. It it that's what it's doing. And we have it's limited as two percentage of the building that can be occupied by those servers. We also have that data centers have to be on public water and sewer. They if they have a water cooled system, they're not required to have a water cooled system, but if they have a water cooled system, that needs to be in a closed loop. On the generator side, we have a requirement that limits the hours of operation for their routine maintenance.
That's the the running of the generators to make sure they operate. And, sound requirements, the sound dampening that they're required to have. It's it's the highest standard that's available. And I believe, oh, and and setbacks. They have increased setbacks, greater than any other industrial, uses might have. They're 200 feet from, all lot lines. Industrial districts are 50 or 100 depending on whether it's industrial, heavy or light industrial, and 500 feet from rural area zoning. And the industrial districts do not have a differentiation between rural and residential.
They treat them the same. And just to tag on to that, uses of an industrial character, which include data centers and other industrial uses, have an entire section of performance standards within the zoning ordinance. And it generates the need for an engineer's report that goes to our county engineer. And it addresses things like noise, vibration, air pollution, and things like that, that you think about, And then also, any data center application that you you about. And then also, any data center application that came in for construction of a new data center would have to go through the normal site plan review process,
which is going to pick up all the stormwater, the setbacks, the landscaping, and if it's in the entrance corridor district, the architectural review board. So it has those same set of of requirements that any other type of use might have. So thank you, but I'm gonna push back because the word by right does not indicate all of that. People think it's the wild wild west. I'm not blaming you all. I'm just saying that I am charging staff to come up with a better description of what we are doing when we say that right so that it doesn't lead
the public to think it's the wild wild West. Yeah. Do you under I mean, we we we agree we need to do better and and we will cover that. And it's probably in state code or something. I don't know the terminology, but we need to figure out how to be better, more descriptive for our community because we weren't just opening it up for any data center company company that wanted to come in and put a data center regardless. But that's what my right sounds like. Agree. And we are our staff. You are thoughtful. Albemarle County is very environmentally conscious. We are always trying to do the best work we can to protect our community
and what's important to our community. And when we say something's by right, the community says, what are you talking about? So we're doing ourselves a disservice and the community a disservice. And I would say similarly for performance standards. When I hear performance standards, I think, okay. You're gonna be judging something after it's done and made making sure that its performance meets standards. That's not what we mean by performance standards. Talk about performance standards. Are they on the front end or the back end, Bill? They can be both. That's right. So help me a little bit with that. Let's So the performance standard,
we require that the just to talk about the generators, for example, the performance standard is that they have a limited hours of operation that they can they can they can run their generators for the routine maintenance. That's an ongoing performance standard. So that's really post development. Predevelopment performance standard is you have to be 500 feet from a rural, lot line, rural zoning lot line. So, that would be something that we look at during the site plan stage to measure it and make sure that your building is not closer than 500 feet.
So, performance standards can be prior to or following, development. So Go ahead. Pardon me. The engineer's report is predevelopment, pre construction, before the use is approved to be constructed and begin. So a better terminology for performance standards. I'm not trying to change the way you all are working, but I'm just saying that we have to get out there with language that the community understands. Because it took me a while as a board of supervisors member to understand what you meant when you said by right and performance standards.
We're talking about design or development regulations. People understand that. They get regulations. But the broad consensus of people that are emailing me, they don't realize that we're talking about regulating anything. I'm just saying. And I think it is critical going forward, data centers aside. Any because we use this language with a lot of what we do and trying to figure out how to get that more clear to our public to release to to decrease the angst that they might have. Now they are they still might not like data centers.
I get that. But we at least should be descriptive of what we're doing and what the terminology means. And with that, I really thank you for your work. But, I would hope that we can choose to figure out some better terminology in the future. And thank you very much for taking into consideration the timing of where we are with data centers and the lack of really how to, how really to make them accountable is what I'm hearing based on changes with the, technology and everything. So thank you very much. Thank you. Yep. Supervisor Malek.
Thank you so much. And I would agree that all of the work that's been done is a benefit. None of it was wasted because what we have learned so far will prepare us whether it's this particular sector or some other on how to engage when things evolve and when things pop up. The terminology question is certainly a good one that I was gonna ask similar questions, so I'm very glad for that. But another example, water cooled system doesn't mean it's a closed this closed loop term still is consuming water.
It may not be as much, but this is the kind of things that people find out, and then they're not as reassured as I might have been when I heard it from the staff report at the first time. So all the the extra detail that that we can learn and is presented to the public, is helpful, because, you know, they're gonna find out. As I used to tell my teenagers, when something happens, you better tell me because I will find out, and then I'll really be mad if you don't tell me yourself. So we need to continue to do the very best job we can. There was a lot of concern about diesel generators period due to the particulates.
And this is the thing where the federal government is not stepping up to protect citizens now. And so this is something that falls to local regulation to try to make it keep an environment that is as safe as possible for, the breathing, the whole particular sizes business is something cumulative impacts is something that other counties in Virginia for ten years have been warring with themselves about the impacts that they're seeing. And, I'm personally very grateful that we're taking the I very much support your recommendation because
I don't want to see a scallop into something where we're going to be boring with ourselves for the next ten years. So this is an excellent choice. Thank you very much. Supervisor Callaway. Yeah. Thank you both. I if if the pause wasn't recommended at the last time we had a discussion about data centers, there were questions and some things you were all gonna go do, and then we would have anticipated that coming back to us. So to build a little bit on supervisor or Malik's point, I don't know what would be appropriate to ask for, but some sort of summary wrap up of where we're at with that remaining info
that we wouldn't we would have received had we not taken this step. I know you all went out and did some other work, did some other research. I I still am interested in having that that information. So, you know, I don't know if that's a memo. I'm thinking like something like that, a white paper, something like that that could come to us to kinda capture where we're at moment in time, what we know, I think would be would be useful and relevant. I think as part of that, given what we did in phase one, it may just be useful to remind us why we chose the 40,000 square. We we immediately started talking about all these other square footages.
You know, supervisor Pruitt mentioned, I mean, it's part of UVA, so it's an ongoing organization, but it's a new entity that doesn't currently exist that's gonna be bringing that one on. My focus, I would be concerned about existing businesses that also have them. You know, I I can't imagine we have others that reach or strive to get to 40,000 square foot, but I don't know. And, just like I would be in other areas when existing businesses, if they as we say we want them to thrive and grow and expand in our county, if that is a need that they need for their internal operations,
I want to understand what we're doing. The 40,000 square foot piece is more about these new things coming in and being unregulated. But what about the things that already exist here, thrive here, and need to continue to do so? I don't wanna be adding extra burden onto them, or process onto them, to be able to continue and and be a successful business in our area. But I I say that without knowing if we have any that even reach that level. So it may be that we're so far above it at 40 that it 40 is fine. But if we've got some that might wanna expand and go beyond 40,
this is gonna require them to come through a special use permit process. And that's the place that I'd like to focus in on and think it's worthy of some more discussion, because I can't imagine local businesses growing out to the to the sizes that that really freak people out. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm also supportive of APAUS, which, I think is unanimous at this point. I don't know if we need a motion on that. But with that, I would also note that there have been some caveats. And I very much appreciate supervisor McHale's point that,
there's been a lot of confusion, on the part of the public as to what we mean when we say performance standards and my right. The fact that there are, you know, pre and post development location standards as well as other regulations, I think it's lost a lot of people. I had emails telling me, well, you could uncover the rural area with these, but never never have proposed anything in close to that. That said, there have been a couple questions about the 40,000. And, I'm also aware that as you've done research on this, you may have looked at performance standards that would apply to those data centers that might be proposed under the 40,000,
cap. And I would like to also hear what those performance standards might be and how they would differ from the ones that are currently in place. Because if we need to add additional performance standards, like the opportunity to do so. So, that's just a possible further follow-up, but still fully agreeing that with the pause on anything, over 40,000 square feet at this time. Just a comment. Sure. But you're asking for regulations. Right. Exactly. Regulations. Because people don't understand performance standards. That's right. You're asking for regulations.
And I wanna say that I keep hearing everyone say case by case. Even if when we're talking about something that is by right, staff is still looking at these applications case by case. Can you talk about that a minute? Because that seems to be not understood. Thank you. So, what I was trying to talk about with putting the pause is the regulations we were looking to try to adopt would be those that apply in every case. So, on the by right, the permitted applications,
those are administratively reviewed. And we go through, as you said, case by case, every single one of them, we go down a checklist to make sure that it is meeting all of the requirements for that particular use on that particular property in that particular zoning district with whatever regulations there might be. And then you have things that are by special use permit, and those are discretionary. They have to come before you, and and it's a it's a discretionary. Whereas the administrative, if we go down that checkbox and everything gets checked,
they get their approval. If they, we go down and there's one thing missing, they don't get their approval until they fix it. So, that's the difference between administrative by right and discretionary special use permit. But in either case that you are they're being looked at case by case And they're whether it's by staff and you're looking at regulations to make sure that they are following the regulations that we have established. Right. I'm just like a dog with a bone about this because I've gotten so many emails that really lead me to believe
we are really misinforming our public on what we're trying to do. And I guess I would add that if you think of the scenario in which a data center, either freestanding, independent, or accessory is built, you're going to have a site plan review. And all of the staff and all of the regulations associated with that design and otherwise. You're going to have a building permit, all the building code requirements and staff review associated with that. And then you're going to have the zoning inspection to make sure the site's built
according to that site plan and the zoning clearance to make sure that all of the regulations are met before that use can begin. Right. So it's not as if it's a free for all pass. Pass, go, and keep moving. Right? Or pass, stop, and keep moving, I guess I should have said. And this is the McKeel theory, and I had the McKeel has a lot of theories, but I'll share a theory with you. Our community is concerned about these huge data centers that we see in a lot of these communities, and they're popping up all over the state.
No one is going to be able to afford to build one of those really huge mega centers in Albemarle County because they cannot afford they will not be able to afford the land. And that's why they're going to counties where land is cheap. I'm not saying that I agree with that. I'm just saying that people are so angst about these huge data centers that they're seeing. And I just don't think they're even realistic in Albemarle County given the cost of our land. But again, I qualify that by saying that's the McKeel theory, and we could have one that pops up,
But I just don't think so. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anything further? Yes. I will only add and just piling on to what Supervisor Pruitt mentioned. Dialing back to our original discussion, I was very much interested in the smaller starting square footage. And so when there is a further discussion about that, and I'm very interested in in looking at that again because I know in my mind what 4,000 looks like and what 40,000 looks like, and so I'm interested to learn. And I really appreciate all this discussion about terminology because permitted if all record requirements
are met is a phrase that I think applies to one of these terms and the way I try to explain it to people, when they ask. And I will the last thing I will say is in Loudoun and Prince William, $4,000,000 an acre is what people and these venture capital things for these stand alone commercial things, money is no object to that. Well, I'll be I'm very glad we have rules that have nothing to do with money. And I don't disagree, Anne, but they are moving into a lot of places where the land is really cheap. Absolutely. Yeah. I mean Yeah.
And we're not. Thank you. Thank you. You have what you need to think. With that board, we are going to take a fifteen minute recess. And welcome to our county executive, mister Jeff Richardson here. And our next item is final do we believe that? Draft awards question Fingers crossed. Led by Tanya Swartzenduver, planning manager and Michael Barnes, planning. Welcome. Thank you. On the screen? Not yet. There we go. So I'm Tanya Swartzendruber, community development department planning manager, and myself and team are here to talk about AC44.
So, this agenda, for this presentation is pretty short and sweet. We'll go through the schedule, go through any notable updates that have happened since the last draft in this one, and then we'll go through the PC resolution and feedback that we heard yesterday and open it up to discussion. So we kicked off phase four with a public input open house on August 21. And then came to you all and PC late August and, of course, September 10.
We didn't quite finish everything on September 10, so that's why we're here before you today, to hear those last comments before we come to you for our public meeting on October 15. So, PC did have their public hearing last night and you have in front of you the resolution that they passed, as well as the comments that they would like to weigh in on. We'll talk about those in a little bit. A few notable changes, that occurred between the last draft and this one is, of course, we did do a general edit for consistency and tone.
We are doing another edit to make sure all of that follows all the way through. We updated all the references to the land use build out analysis and included the data from 2025. We clarified that title for the, table, for the criteria of the assessing the adequacy of land in the development areas. And you'll see that PC recommended a further title, just change small change. We also added some enlarged, future land use maps. We removed the rural interstate interchange content per your request,
as well as the action that was later in that chapter. We added an action to address lack of childcare in the thriving economy chapter. We also added actions to promote awareness of affordable housing options and supporting aging in place in the housing chapter. And then in the parks and rec, chapter, we updated the chart for existing parks and facilities to include the equestrian trails and biking trails as well as if the park was accessible by transit. For cultural resources,
we added a call out box to refer what to clarify what historic resources are. And then finally, in implementation, we revised the big the seventh big move just slightly to, be strengthened social connection and community well-being. So, like I said, you have the PC resolution in front of you. They voted six to zero to recommend approval with the following amendments. And I paraphrased here on the slide, but if you look on that second page of the resolution,
you have the exact language and in in detail to what those, amendments are. So in part two for growth management, they suggested some adjusted language regarding the boundary revisions, which is what I referred to earlier. Actually, it's the second one, on page 12. They suggested we revise the title. Then in part three for environmental stewardship, they suggested that we add an action that requires planting of 80% locally native species.
In the development area land use chapter, we they suggest that we add a sentence to address water quality. And in the community facilities similarly, added an action about opportunities to add stormwater best practices. There was a little bit of feedback, from the PC on some comments that we received over the preceding days and, PC decided to, bring forward these two items. They generally agreed with the housing comments that were received on ninetwenty five from legal
aid. You also have a copy of that in, that we just handed out as well. So you'll see what those those comments were specifically. As well as they generally agreed with the intent of the the sweet spot request, though they felt like they didn't get to benefit from the full analysis from staff, as well as public input. So, again, you'll see in that packet that we just handed out a little bit more detail on that request that was, received, from the requester. With that, I'm going to turn it over for discussion. We're looking for any edits that you might have for this draft.
The small ones, the, you know, the small edits, the scrivener errors, if you'd like, please feel free to send those to us and we can adjust those as we go through this last time. But we'd love to hear anything any of your other thoughts and edits you'd like to see. Thank you. This is a moment where I want to look to the Board and Supervisor Pisto Curley also can weigh in I guess as to, how you'd like to take this whether we go person by person with all the edits or just section by section.
At some point, I think we may have initially want to take them by section and ask go around in our order. But once we've gone through a few chapters, we get a little further later in the document. I might just look to each chapter and ask is any are there any suggested edits on that, from anyone rather than opening it up. And again, I would I'd like to say, sort of the serenity prayer here for a moment that we're looking to see what needs to be what feel people feel needs to be added or I very much appreciate all the effort that's gone into,
making changes so far. And I hope, you know, we can we can if those are agreed to, you know, without a lot of comment, just work on those things that are important to to change, or to address at this point. So that's what our round would be. I'm just wanna make sure I understand what your process you're talking about Yeah. Jim. So we're gonna go through Each chapter? Well, I I I I certainly don't need that, but maybe Yeah. Well, maybe we can take it in some chunks Yeah. Just to make sure that, you know,
we're not we're not looking at the whole document all at once. Right. Because I'm sure there Yeah. There may be a lot. But I also, again, if we focus on what we think needs to be changed Okay. That's good. As opposed to just being supportive, which I am of all of the changes that have been made based on previous requests. That works. Thank you. I think that's helpful. Thank you. So, with that, if we might focus on let's see what happens if we go a couple at a time, the policy and the growth management section,
to see if there are any specific requests for changes, additions, subtractions to those sections at this point. Also recognizing that we have these amendments that have been suggested by the Planning Commission. And if there are any concerns about those amendments, this is the time to express them. Otherwise, I'll treat them as being supported if there aren't any other concerns. Okay. So, starting with supervisor of APECO currently, I don't know if I made that very clear. But, if you have concerns about language in the policy section and the growth management section,
I appreciate identifying those now. Okay. Thank you very much, chair Andrews. I'm a little bit as a at a disadvantage because I see myself on the screen. On my phone, things don't show up very well. I would like to if if possible if possible, not to prolong everything, but I agree with what you said. If we could take it or, Tanya could take it section by section to show us what was substantively changed. And I know I've made little minor tweaks myself,
and I've already mentioned that to her. But if we could go through the changes that she mentioned regarding the pages, and then also, discuss what the PC is recommending, if there's a way to bring that up or to show We have those in our attachment a. We have the summary of the changes. It's detailed four pages that we had in our packet, but, then there are, the five amendments. No. I right. Right. I see that. It's because normally, I I get the law I get the, paper packet that's larger. Yeah. But I was I'm just
I I don't wanna I mean, I like the changes that have been made. I have no problem with that. I'll probably have comments maybe as we go through it, or maybe I should just defer and go to the back of the line, so to speak, and let everyone speak first. That would be helpful. I wish I had everything, frankly, in in front of me. I know what you're saying regarding and I did receive the resolutions, but it's nice to see the the language with, what we're doing. So that's not making a lot of sense. I apologize.
So can we go on to the next supervisor? And our order, of course, is just to to get us started. We have comments. Right. That's fine. Supervisor Pro. For the policy and growth management section, I I think I don't have any issues with the planning commissions to, requested revisions. They seem pretty, innocuous. I would be curious what criteria they were thinking of adding to the, to the removal, but I don't know that we need to entertain that. It just gives us, I think, a a legislatively freer hand, which I'm fine with. And I have no further of my own.
I don't think I even had many initial edits on this section. So that I I actually have nothing other than to incorporate the planning commissions. Okay. Supervisor McAfee. You put the planning commission back up just for general principle. Sure. The planning commission or the the chapter at the chapter up there? Well, I was thinking about the planning commission. The planning commission five. Yeah. Recommendations. That's good. Sure. Enjoy. Having said that, you probably don't have to put it up because I was gonna say I don't have any problem with them. But I I thought it might be helpful to have them on the screen because, Mike just referenced them,
and I'm sorry. And you're I've caught you by surprise. I'm I'm And you I didn't know what that Yeah. Just the amendments that are on the Yeah. Going inside. I'm So they there. I have a year. And I just thought it'd be helpful to have it on the screen, but that's okay. No. It's It's alright. I I I've got it. I can there you go. But the next page is the, the The details. There we go. The amendments. Yeah. Is that big enough? Just so the public can hear, to be honest with you, we're talking about and could could see. No. But, I have no problem at all with the planning commission amendments. I think they they they were appropriate,
and I think the language is fine. Going through the first chapter, I guess, we're kind of all over the place Mhmm. Jim. But on page 22, I am so impressed because I will tell you that I sat at the kitchen table, the previous one and the current one, and went page by page through the whole thing comparing, and I found one edit I was gonna suggest, which is pretty impressive. That's pretty Right. On page 22, it says in the one to third paragraph down, it says jurisdictional area remains in place and has been amended time.
I think you mean overtime. Right. Yes. That's the only edit I would suggest in the whole document. I may have missed some, but I was pretty impressed that that that that was the only one I found. Yes. And then I do have a couple of questions if Jim doesn't mind. Oh, no. I noticed on page 23, neighborhoods one through seven, we talked about actually qualifying or quantifying, but what whichever the right word is, what those neighborhoods are. I saw them in the back of the so it would seem like to me that if we're not putting them where we first
talk about them, if they're in the back, can we put some connection as to where somebody could find the information for where those what those neighborhoods are? Of course. I think we can put a map on this page right there. Yeah. That would be great if that was one. Because I remember we kinda talked about that, and I did find them in the very back, but, you know, anyway, thank you. Okay. And then, I just wanted to thank you because actually, multiple of my suggestions made it in. I would go, yay. They mentioned transit here. Yay. Thank you very much. So it was really great to see.
And skinning down the document, while I realized that this final version that you gave us, which is probably not really the final, but this latest draft has more pages than the one I was working off of. You added some pages. They were good additions. Mhmm. But compared to the last version, this is much more readable and much more succinct. So I appreciate that. One other another question, LLC master plan. I didn't see it referenced or mentioned, and I'm like a dog with a bone about that Lansdowne campus master plan. You said you were going to link it somewhere.
Help me. I see he's looking for it now. Retention. It's in the community facilities, disaster under just missed it. I couldn't find it. Yeah. No. That's fine. I'm happy to point it out. It is on page six of community facilities, And let's see here. We mentioned it in the last sentence of the first paragraph. Campus master plans, such as the Lamb's Lane campus master plan, should be used to plan facility amendments, such as sidewalks and trail connections. I just missed it. That's okay. So I appreciate you. And I will go back and take time to go back and look at that on Page six of the facilities.
And just to be clear, I think we talked about this, but it's like we we don't wanna confuse what's going on on a school site or, you know, a school campus or maybe where, Mountain View and the new school is gonna be. They may be doing their master plans. That's kind of more we thought of the community facility plan and not a true master plan like we were doing for one of our larger neighborhoods. So And I agree with that. I think that's appropriate because it's a school, but I just didn't didn't want it to get lost. No, ma'am. And spent some time on it. They spent time on it,
and I really don't want it to be a book on the shelf that somebody forgets. So I appreciate it being in there. If I just one more thing. We did add it to the reference document list. Oh, great. Well, just so it's right there as well. I'm not sure if I looked at all the references. But, anyway, I think by the time I went through these one by one, I was so tired. I said, I'm done. But, anyway, I think those are all that the of the comments I have right now for this document. I would like to have a discussion or at least put on the table sweet spot,
but I'm happy to do that over there. Appropriate into the development area. That's fine. So that works. I just wanted to say that I'd like to have that discussion. Thank you very much. Supervisor Mallett? Okay. So we're still on plan and growth management. I'll see you in your account. Okay. Good. Thank you. And thank you for incorporating many of the things I was gonna ask about today already. Regarding the list from the planning commission, Yes. For one and two, and that's on page 12, g m up GMP 12. Oh, let okay. Hold on. Gotta catch up now. So we talked about 12, and that's in the header.
And also on page 13, the same, header. I had originally scribbled in initial in the corner, but I think the planning commission's word of potential is very clear. Potential criteria processing adequacy of land. The same thing that same idea as on page 12, but on page 13, adding that as well. Definitely, the the native species and the waters and where because now I can't remember which chapter it is. This discussion of swaps that I will I saw the word once, but now I can't find it.
Where does it is it later, or is it in growth It's in growth management policy, page 12 at the bottom. Alright. Because that is another topic which I'm hearing a lot of concern about because of its lack of detail and understanding. And somewhere in here, there's language about as a future objective, it was in response to the transfer development rights topic. And so the similar language for the swap that was already in the document for the transfer of development rights, I think,
would be appropriate, which says, we're gonna think about this. We know we're not ready for it right now, but we're we would put this on the think about list. So does that make sense to you, and do you have, I'm gonna try to find You know, I'm confused about what you're saying what you're asking for. Well, there was one there was a have been discussion about the the idea that was thrown out about swapping territory. Yeah. But little criteria to make it ready, in my opinion, for being included. And I was suggesting that the same type of language that had been used for
the transfer of development right topic, which is in a similar level of nondevelopment that would be appropriate for consideration of swapping land for earlier into growth areas. So that's what I was asking, where that was and I need to told me it was in page. Page 12. 12. Must be 13. So, anyway, going to the Someone can't PR part. That's the figure out where to put Well, I was comfortable with the language that was there already as it was. Well, I'm I mean, there is a proposal from the Planning Commission that it would now talk about potential
criteria for, assessing removing underperforming areas from the development areas including but unlimited to the following. And in the previous paragraph, it talks about inclusive of robust community engagement. And that is in the process. Okay. But that's not where the as I said, there was one place where it was talking about swapping land, and it never really got a a firm I guess, if it's in rural, I'll find it later. So I will put that out there. I think, Anne, that the stuff about the swapping was in this second part of the growth management policy section,
page 12. Right. It's now on the screen. Yeah. It's on the screen. And I think with the so, I just want to make sure that the TDR thing was a proposal that came up through our discussions with you all as something that maybe we would look at at some point in the future. I think the stuff that's in this chapter here is intended to give us some sort of guidepost as we move forward if there is ever a proposal for removing land from the development area. And it is a bit broad,
yes. And I think partly it is that way by necessity because I think either, A, we will find the individual circumstances will dictate what we should be talking about with that parcel and, B, I mean, it's something that we're still I think we will work our way into. But we were responding to something you all were talking about at one point about certain portions of the development area may not be something that is going to develop for a host of reasons and maybe you want to consider at some point taking them out. So,
you asked for some criteria and this is the criteria. Well, there was one person who asked it, unfortunately. We didn't have a full fledged full throated debate at that time and this is what happens when we don't is that then something gets legs that, is great concern in the in the general public that this is just a way to to expand things. I mean, when a potential where to go? The I think supervisor Andrews had suggested a couple of times ago about changing the original language, assessing underperforming areas in the development areas,
and what should we be doing to improve those the, performance in the development area. And instead of doing that, we jump to gobbling up some other land from somewhere else and taking something that supposedly even has amenities already on it like water and sewer and sticking it in the rural area where it's not conforming. So that's the sort of level of lack of definition that I think makes this deserve to be, in the future, think about as opposed to something that has a whole page dedicated to itself. And some I think the other thing when where the board is justifiably concerned about
opening a box that then is going to saddle staff with endless applications from people who come out and say, well, I've got this 20 acres here, and I wanna stick it over here. And we're gonna be chasing our tails a long time, and the future boards, when I'm not here, are gonna be doing that as well when we haven't done the homework first to really improve the performance in the areas we have now before taking picking on anything else. So I'm gonna stop going on on that. And are we going through this? Because this is the first time I've seen this, and I don't I'm not ready to say I support all these things because I
haven't even had a chance to read them yet. I don't know if anybody else has already read all these. The housing comments from Emily Drinks. That just showed up on the desk a half an hour ago. So I'm not ready to say anything about these. Okay. Then I'm gonna stop right now for for now and put this away. But the, so adding that extra one on page 13, the similar to what the planning commission has on page 12 would would get me caught up on their on their list. Thank you. K. Supervisor Calloway? So what are we on? We're on policy and gross management time.
And that is let's see. Continuous pages from start to finish. I apologize because I missed the work session where you all worked through a lot of this. So I have not had that pass. So I'm going to make some comments today, and if you all feel like too bad, sucker, then you can say that to me. I do wanna point out that the, information from miss Dreyfus was sent to the board on September 10 by email, and I regret that I was missed that meeting because I was going to address
that email at that meeting. So I'm I'm fully prepared to walk through all of that and provide opinion on it just because I was prepared to do that. And and those are all in future chapters. So if you wanna do that at a different time, I'm happy to to take that on. Those chapters. I think the the piece here that I'm gonna I really only have one note. I don't think I have any on the I'm working kind of on the attachment. So you're working on attachment b, which is policy. I don't have really any remarks there. On attachment c. B, It's the one I guess it would be c.
Make sure I'm aligning my notes to that's development area. I guess that I I would be remiss if I'd I feel like this is going to come out more in our budget conversation. I'm just feeling the tension between in the policy language, we keep talking about how service delivery is not expected or isn't to be delivered in the same manner in the rural area as the development area. But the reality is when it comes to police, fire, and safety, that the expectation is the same. It is the same. I mean,
50 plus positions of our 90 some went to backfill the volunteer loss that's happening in the rural area. So and I'm not gonna sit here and say we shouldn't have provided those fire services to the rural area. We have to provide that service out there. So I'm worried about that tension between we keep stating, oh, well, it's in the rural area. We don't need to provide the services because the expectation is less. But is it? Okay. Time to respond and all of that. We can get into the nuances of it, But it's not, well, if the volunteer if volunteer loss is there,
we have to take over the operations for that day. And that is a you know, that that isn't dealing with response times. That's major resource draw. So I think, I'm calling it out, not that I necessarily have any, I guess, change in wording, but if we start dealing with this in budget, this document reads that prioritization should be given to where the density is in terms of providing resources and services to delivery. And I don't know that we've ever really, really approached it that way in budgeting.
So I'm calling it out that that that's gonna be on my mind, during the upcoming, the upcoming budget cycle because we're basically endorsing that notion in the comp plan. That's all I have on the and, we almost even I put here, but expectations are different. It's a it's a it's between page four and page six. It's it's almost like we're we're trying to have both. Yeah. But we have to contend with that in some manner, as it comes to the fact that we're, we're dealing with limited resources for all of this delivery in face of what we've started last year with the tax increase.
The rest of my I think the bulk of all my other stuff are in the coming chapters, so I'll stop there. Okay. Thank you. I have limited comments. I'm not sure you know, kinda late for some of them, but I'm gonna bring them up anyway. There's first, I wanna thank you for the graph our graphs on, page 26 of the policy section because they now help illustrate that even though there have been changes to our development area, there also have been densification, of the development area. But my comment,
would really go to the growth management, on page, let's see. Page six, and this comment may apply elsewhere as a better location, but I thought that it might be appropriate for us to make some comment somewhere about the extent to which development has already occurred in the rural area. Now that may be for the rural chapter, but maybe on, the section where we're talking about growth management update, we're talking about how much is developed in different places, and that hasn't really been addressed. The fact that I've seen statistics saying how much the rural area has already been
developed, And that's not referenced. The, you know, the biggest issue, I guess, that people had is the future development area boundaries. And, I I, you know, really appreciated Commissioner Murray's listing of many more criteria that might have been considered. But in light of the lack of opportunities to really review those in detail, making sure that this has potential criteria including, but not limited to, suggestive at least that there are a lot of other criteria that need to be considered. And I'm sad that we're not trying a little harder on that.
And I agreed with his comment that the first bullet, their locations that do not meet the objectives, is kind of a vague criteria that doesn't really give me a sense of what it what we're looking for when we start to look at the criteria. But, you know, those those unlike some of my comments to come, those are not particularly wordsmithing. But I I I hope that, if you have a chance to go through again, I recognize that particularly this Page 12 that I think it's inadequate for the task at this point.
And and I appreciate that it's it's being adjusted to make it apparent to the reader that it's not really up to the task, if well. That's one way to solve that issue. So that that was all I had. A supervisor looked up. He still currently, I wanna come back to you. Yes. Thank you. Am I can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Yes. I'm trying to manage, two cell phones and plus my computer and not easy. But anyway, I can do it. On page 12, that's what I was, also focusing on.
I I appreciate the language in there, for being able to be you've heard this before. I'm always using the flexible word, trying to be flexible, because as supervisor Galloway said, there may be areas that we in the development area that we do not want to develop that aren't developable, and we may and there may be some areas bordering the development area, that are in the rural area that would make sense. My understanding of a land swap is not acre per acre.
It could be, for example, two acre let's say five acres of, development land is swapped for maybe one acre of rural land. I don't know, what will be what the what will happen. But I do like the flexibility because our our county is changing. We did say we don't want it to go move the development boundaries. However, I think we need to keep an open mind for the future because we know it's not gonna happen now.
We're keeping an open mind in the future not to hamstring ourselves should something come up that makes sense. Now addressing supervisor Malek's, concerns, I'm not sure how we label that or how we actually word that. I think we put in the word potential. Is that what I heard? Potential criteria for removing. Is that correct? Assessing. Assessing. Not removing. I'm sorry. What? Potential criteria for assessing. For assessing. Okay. The appropriate criteria. Fixed in the document. Including, but not limited to. Right. And I I could live with that.
I could live with that. So those are all my comments regarding growth management plan, for, for this section. Okay. Thank you. Pleasure, Galloway. I'm sorry. I just didn't go through the those two. I didn't catch that was in this round. Yep. If you have concerns about them. I don't have concerns about if I mean, I don't really I'd love to under I guess I have to listen to their conversation to understand what robust community engagement means. Public process, I guess. Well, okay. But this is good grief. I mean, what do we do that doesn't include public engagement?
Eight years. We Well, there was a good measure. That's fine. I'm not gonna I don't we don't need to waste time on it. If I'm okay with it being in there. But this point on on number two about the potential for assessing, it's first off, it's stated on page 11. The criteria on the following page provide a starting point for the consideration of potential revisions. It's already stated Mhmm. Before the lead in. And this is that piece where we think redundancy equates to importance or power. I don't I don't I mean, when I read that, when I read that, that's potential criteria for assessing.
It's very wishy washy. And if it's already stated and we're restating it just to the I mean, if we're just doing that to appease fears, then we can state that, and I won't stand in the way of doing it. But but that appeasing fears does not get to planning and processing criteria in the work that has to be done. So, I think there's a concern that this has not yet had the work done necessary to that. Well, that I understand that point, but I why do we have to say it why do we have to say potential twice and starting point twice for a a future process?
I was gonna say the process is in the future, and we it that will be There's a lot of things in this document that do that. Exactly. I will add one thing if I may, and that is what you just said is the core of why people are concerned. Because on page 11, it says starting point, and then aft that's the end of any starting point mentioned. Everything on page 12 on, except without these changes that the planning commission talked about, looks like it's written in stone. So I think that showing. What page eleven and twelve without the, either initial or or potential,
having that reiteration of one extra word in the heading of those two pages makes it very clear. And That's that's I mean, look, if if if that appeases some sort of fear, like I said, I'm not gonna stand in the way of it. But the word potential shows up so many times on page 11. To speak to the different processes of how this will go about, there's a lot of things in this document that are future looking plans, procedures, processes that are gonna be followed. Yeah. I'm done. I'm waiting for a flight. May I say something? Please. Okay. Thank you very I I think we're in the jump in,
portion, I hope. I I also not I please forgive me for for not picking up on that, when I was talking before, but I do not like the word robust, community engagement. We all want community engagement. We all want and we get that. I mean, frankly, we get that through emails, through calls, through, people coming, before the public, which is great. But robust almost tells me, that you didn't get enough. It leaves it open for someone to say, well, you didn't do enough. Yes. You held five meetings.
Yes. We sent in 500 emails. That's not enough. We need more. That's my problem. It almost seems and I would like to ask the other board of supervisors members, frankly, are we putting in other words, for example, potential robust and everything to delay things, to make sure that we really don't get anywhere, that we don't have the flexibility for being able to do something in the future? Honestly asking that question. I'm gonna say no for myself. I think that we've made great many changes over the last forty years that I've
been working on these things, and and public process the statement of public process is important. Yeah. I I agree with that. See, now it's in the statement that if I don't agree with robust community engagement, that I'm somehow against robust community engagement. That's correct. Error. Take the word robust out or whatever. I just Yeah. Take the word robust out. But but, you know, sort of Agree. Trying to push other people aside because you don't like a particular word is not really helpful. At some point, I would like to make a comment about fire and rescue, but you tell me when you're ready for that. I was just going to add, I I think I agree with the points that are made.
And, also, like, I don't see either of these changes, whether or not they're incorporated, as impacting the way a single county employee does changes a single thing that they are going to do in executing these. I I don't know. I I have forgive me for saying I have a hard time bringing myself to care about either of these changes. I'm willing to support them. I'm willing to not support them. I really just get it away from it. K. Can we remove the word robust if there's You guys, like I said, I'm not gonna stay in the way, but I don't like anything that suggests that we haven't followed that that sort of
engagement in previous attempts. We have a very extensive community engagement process, and we always have. Yes. And at times, it has been such a laborious process, I will say it, over years and years and years that it has actually impeded our ability to to get the work done that we need to get done. And I'm not against community engagement, but we are I think our consultant talked about the redundancy in our documents over and over again,
the consultant for the economic development strategic plan. And I see our community expectation of community engagement much greater than any other community that I've ever dealt with or I've ever followed or I've ever worked with. Certainly, I've not worked with communities like I have here, but I just think that we have to be careful in not using community engagement as a tactic to delay. That's certainly what we had that happened when we first started talking about our economic
development office and and MOU. So I'm just saying right now, I think robust is not necessary. I think we have a lot of redundancy and our community engagement is is certainly you want, does Jody want to come up? I was saying No. She Yeah. She's oh, she's talking. I saw her move. I'm sorry. Don't move. But don't move in the past anymore, Jody. Yeah. These are the these are the recommendations that came from the planning commission. If we want to move the road robust, I'm fine with that.
But and I see a nod. But otherwise, I'd like to continue to work with the recommendations from the Planning Commission on that. I have one last little question that came up in the Planning Commission. I just want to double check it. On page 13, help me with this because this came from commissioner Bivens and I really wasn't following. He said, on page 13, and it's on board well, it carries over. But 13, let's just scroll one. It says criteria, for assessing adequacy of LAND, and then it says factors. And he was trying to say that there's a difference between those two words and
I wasn't understanding. Yeah, I took, a distinction between these factors we should consider or criteria we should consider. I happen to be on my phone looking up both definitions while I was talking. I think criteria sort of give you sort of the rules, things you want to look at before you make a decision. I thought it was actually an adequate use of the word, but I don't mind if we were in here, I just wanted to make sure that if there was something there that I missed, everybody had a chance to respond to that. Miss Florida. There you go. She's up here. Thank you,
board. Jody Filardo, community development director. I have my charge now from the team. I think one of the things that is particularly of concern today is is we wanna make sure we get through this document. Yes. And so I think what we'd like to do, if we could process like we did the last work session with you all, where we listen to all of you. And then at the end of, say, this policy and growth management plan section, we, recount back to you what we hope is the majority opinion.
We're not gonna obviously take a vote. That would be really helpful because I think we can, have lots of conversation and debate over particular word use. But I'm very concerned that we've got a lot of lifting to do today. And so if that would be helpful, we are happy to come back and kind of recount the summary. Thank you. Yep. You bet. And with that, I'm going to ask if there are any additional comments on the growth management plan or policy? There are. I'm sorry. Okay. I've got my stuff, my notes labeled wrong. Okay. Didn't know if you had had an opportunity to give comments to staff when you
weren't at the previous meeting. No. Okay. Go ahead. There's two points that I'll make. I don't. You calling out that page 13. It's not the commissioner Bivens point or what you just raised, but that was one that I wrote down. When I read the criteria for assessing the adequacy of land in the development areas and then read the factors in the criteria, it talks about land in the rural area. So I don't understand why it says in the development areas. It just seems to me to be criteria for assessing the adequacy of county land. And then depending on which category that land is in,
then it's in the development area or in the rural area. So, ability to be served by public water and sewer, I mean, that that somewhat defines pretty clearly what is or isn't. Now we have properties in the development area that aren't connected, these old neighborhoods, but need to be, but we're not assessing you know, we would say, well, right, that's appropriate. We wouldn't pull those neighborhoods out. They would be connected to the stormwater. But if you had a piece of property in the rural land that was similar, maybe it had had a connection to the piece of it,
you'd still just work on the adequacy of the land, not in the develop it seems like we're only, assessing the adequacy of land in the development areas when we're assessing the adequacy of land pretty much everywhere. Assessment of adequacy of service provision for community facilities, services and infrastructure, including fire rescue and police. Well, where it speaks to some of that in a way, it speaks to both it speaks to that assessment of adequacy, one way for the development area and another way for the rural area. So it just You have specific language you'd like I just cut in the development
areas, criteria for assessing the adequacy of land. It seems to me that it's determined based on the category it's in already. If it's rural area, you, you know, you're saying, well, yeah. Is it appropriate and such suggestive for, rural area? If it's development area, then then likewise. Do you take out the rural or and or the developed? Yeah. Yeah. And just use I didn't I just don't under because if you're only going to correct well, yeah, because it doesn't say anything, but it speaks to things that I'm like, well, adequacy of service provision for community facilities, services, and infrastructure, including fire,
rescue, and police. Well, is that speaking to development area? We've already said assessment or proximity to existing community centers. Okay. That's speaking to the bigger piece. But in the growth management policy piece of it, this comes on the heels of underperforming areas from the development area. Some of those properties that we have talked about, whether you agree with it or not, that are on the borders for a swap, well, there could be areas that are closer to those community facilities, services and infrastructure. So, it just seems to me to be a This is an artifact of the fact
that at our previous discussion, we're doing non incentives. It said criteria for adding land to the developing areas. And removing the existing land. Adding land to the developing areas, we said assessing, adequacy of land in the developing area. And that's the only reason why that change I believe got made is because we didn't like criteria for adding land to the development area. Oh, wow. It's scary. I guess that That was gonna be scary. Do you have that when when I just looked at the attachments in the packet and then the notes, so there were things that I have have probably missing some holes of missing knowledge
on. Well, then I'll leave that at at that. I mean, not gonna get bent out of shape. I do have a a bigger philosophical point. It seems throughout the entire growth management policy and the rest of the entire document, we love the word efficiently. I remember one time when I was running for the school board, I used to say a lot that we need to use money and dollars and resources efficiently. And I had a constituent at a at a at a town hall kind of meeting. So don't you mean effectively? Because, you know, if you just were shooting for efficient efficiency, that's that's fine. That's not bad.
But sometimes you have to be effective, and that doesn't necessarily mean you're going to be the most efficient. Yeah. You're right. So the instances that you It's all through it's all through the speaking of the efficient use of the development area. It's everywhere. Efficiently use the development area. I was on page four, page six. I've got, page 10 of the gross growth management plan, page 11 growth. I mean, then I started going, well, I'm not gonna track every instance instance of it because efficiently is used throughout the entire document. It seems to me, specifically, when it talks about what I thought we were trying to go for with scorecards
and build out analysis as the the development area was to be as effective as possible with the development area so that we could stave off the need for a boundary adjustment so that we're maximizing what we need to have occur in the development area. I don't think the word efficiently matches that Mhmm. That vision that this whole board has agreed with Mhmm. About saying, well, 58% approval of density in the development area is going to put a strain on development area boundaries and is going to bring something that everybody does seem to be
concerned about to to make that happen sooner. So, you know, that's a that's a word thing. I I don't know if effective is right. I don't know if proficient is right. I don't know if maxima I I don't know what the words would be, but I question or I just caution the use of efficient because we're really not trying Trying to be effective. Not trying to be efficient. Agree. I mean, we are to a sense because that implies cost effectiveness as well. But this doing things right. But this board does say, well, it's just more efficient for developers to clear cut clear cut the lot and don't
protect any of the trees. I don't like that idea. Well, that's efficient. Very efficient. I agree with you. That's a good change. But it's not efficient for our for our approach for the comp plan. So I I am that's a big kinda change. Could we direct the staff to review the worst use of the word efficient and to replace it with effective or something appropriate? We'd be happy to do that. Great. Thank you. Very good. That's a good catch from your constituent interview, Ned. I agree. Yeah. So it looks like my page number is reset. So I'm definitely in d a l u. Okay. I should be Well, then,
I'm afraid I could do DAOU, probably alone because there's sufficient amount of meat in that chapter that I think that merits just focus. And then we can try to move a little faster through some of the other chapters. So, if would you like to start supervisor Lupista currently or should I start with supervisor Pruwit? Yes. I would, let you go to the planning Go to that. Are we going to number two on the suggestions from the planning commissioner? Planning commissioner? So, we're doing everything, comments, whether you want anything changed in the development area,
land use chapter. And we're assuming that we're okay with the Planning Commission changes, recommended changes unless stated otherwise by a board member. Well, that's on the things that that haven't yet been addressed either by the Planning Commission. And I and I guess I would say there are changes suggested in the letter from Emily Dreyfus of Legal Aid Justice Center. So if those, have to do with, DAU chapter implementation section, they need to be addressed at this time as well. Right. And and I have to say I'm I'm very I'm I'm very I'm pretty comfortable
with what, has been suggested by the planning commission. I do, look forward to us getting into, a couple of the other areas regarding, what's coming up. Swap well, I think we've dealt with the swapping, of land, or we're going to go into that in more in-depth. I think we've done what we we're going to do in the gross management part, which is the part where that's focused. Okay. So, I'll pass for right now. Thank you. Supervisor Pruitt. Thank you. I wanna just begin by saying I know this is where we first,
I want to begin at the beginning. I do like, I don't think we previously had the flume broken out with the different insets with it's much better. You can actually see what's going on. It breaks it out by neighborhood, which is a model that we use, but I don't know that the public is often seeing that, like, kind of neighborhood style breakout. I I think it's much more effective. I'll I'll reiterate the point I've made before, which I was, interested to hear. We actually had some public comment on today, that I think the flume is something that we should deal with legislatively as a discrete object.
That is not really the current way we do it. We outsource that to the CACs, and then we review it deliberately after we have it from them. I'm not sure I agree with that process, but I also know that I don't have the votes for that. I will just state that again. I also don't want do we want to engage with the sweet spot right now, or do we want to go around the horn on general, feedback in, the development area land use and then talk about the sweet spot within the context of the flow? Separately would be better, I think. Excuse me? Separately as this topic Okay. No problem. They do this and then come back to the go
ahead. Sorry. Is, is section four from planning, is that, development area land use? It says Doula, not Dalu, but I think that might be for this section. That was a mistake, so it should be for Dalu. K. Wait. Let me just make sure I'm looking at that correctly. That's what the planning commission. Yeah. Page 42. Manimize degradation of surface. Is that stated anywhere else in our objectives or anywhere else in here as a as a policy preference, in the comprehensive plan, what they're suggesting? The preference of on-site over,
off-site credits. I feel like I remember us discussing this, but I don't know if it's enshrined anywhere else. Again, thinking about the the duplication component. Number four with the yeah. We did discuss it. If it shows up anywhere else, it would be in the environmental stewardship chapter. I'm not sure I have a strong feeling on this one way or the other. I think I'm okay to support it if if other members of the board want to weigh in on this and educate me more. This is not an issue, a preference, a policy preference I'd ever considered in in much depth. So,
Jerry, that's all I have. Okay. Supervisor McHugh. I do not have a lot to add to this. I'm especially for timing wise, I don't have anything that's critical. I do wanna come back to sweet spot. But I would say, Mike, to yours, that for the off purchase of off-site credits, I am supportive of their their language change just because and I think Anne's nodding her head. Those of us that have been around for a while, they have never really they don't really help us when it they're going somewhere else off-site.
And so I think the planning commission was on to something when they made that. The same. K. That's all. Yeah. Thank you. Supervisor Mermelin. I would agree. Supporting planning commission number four, and also the, that was going on to page 42 there. And the just a perfect example is the Woodbrooke Lagoon. Instead of the developer being required to make the improvements on-site that would have benefited our water, they get to help somebody in Appomattox County. Does not work for me. So I support that completely. And I think that is all I have in the DA because everything else was taken
care of. Thank you very much. How's your call? Alright. So I'll go to one point so this is page 44 in the objectives. 1.5. Fine with the reduced light spillover, etcetera. The the phrase prioritizing a safe environment for pedestrians and bicyclists, of course, but that also is a the the piece that I'm I wonder is do we just here state all individuals and property? Because in the development area, I I think of the individual with the with the terrible accident over on 20,
which which led which was part of the reason that led me to to include a safety element in talking about lighting. And, of course, we wanna protect the pedestrians in the in that instance where we're pedestrians. But it was also the driver of that, because it was a, I believe, a no fault incident. I mean, it was a terrible accident. But the protection is not is obviously for those folks to not get hit, but it's also for the emotional well-being of the person in the car Sure. Sure. Driving. Think so. That's right. They're both impacted on that. So and then the other piece of this is we do have to recognize that
in the development area, When things are invested in in terms of, capital, you know, I've made this case before about why there needs to be adequate lighting around car dealerships due to car thefts. So the protection of property is something that needs to be just a part of it. Whether it needs to be to rise to this level in 01/05, fine. I had just put in there all individuals and property. Prioritizing a safe environment for all individuals and property would be what I would suggest in the wording because it's not about fighting against the reducing the light and the
the overage and all of that. I'm not trying to get after that. I'm trying to just make sure that it's more it's more than just those particular users. It's all users of the area, and it's and it is the physical property as well. So that that's where I'm at on that. Do you want and I should be dealing with these as well? Yes. So in the email for miss Dreyfus, I'll just try to stay in order. She had put it as one three, but update the zoning ordinance to create an affordable housing overlay. They were using earlier drafts, so the numbers are gonna be But, I mean,
this board tried to we considered an overlay for the whole development area because there's a somewhere else, I think, it talks about overlay. I mean, my mind has probably changed since we did it, but I don't think the board has the appetite to do that. I'm kinda liking I feel like Mike sometimes. Like, well, I don't think the boats would be there to just implement this one. It doesn't mean we can't do it, and I think it's something that can be wrestled with when Albemarle housing Albemarle gets redone, which I have comments on when we get to the housing chapter. One I'm just and I think this is just I must just be dumb on
this one. I'm just not getting one nine in this whole ratio business of of rural versus development area and the ratios and why that should trigger anything. And and I'm sure it's just a lack of understanding, so I may just need a a follow-up conversation to build that. I don't wanna get into all that now, because I bring it because it's also in the rural area chapter on on page three where it talks about this, monitor the proportion of development occurring within the development areas compared with the rural area. I don't understand what the comparison gets us. I always I don't get it.
Like, I get, okay, if the we're getting concerned there's too much development happening in the rural area, but why does that trigger something to have to happen in the development area? The rural area, if if we do what we say we're trying to do or achieve what we're trying to do, they've got buy right buildings, people have development rights, they should be able to build that out. And and and if they start if they start to take advantage of their rights to build residences out there that they're afforded and they do that at a faster pay we might not like it, but why does that trigger a change in what we're doing in the development area?
I think the original one of the things that's in my mind is that it was because in making investments in the development area to make it a more appealing place to live that would attract more people to live there and stay there, I mean, it was to protect the quality of life in the growth area so that it would not become a can of sardines and make people wanna leave. That was the goal that I thought was being described in that. I don't need the proportions, the percentages, the ratios either. I think if the and I think there's been a dramatic shift from the very,
very large majority, which were in the rural area fifteen, twenty years ago, and now a very strong minority of new development is in the country. I mean, I know lots of former neighbors of mine who said, I'm older. I'm moving to the town because you know? Or new teenage drivers. I don't want my kid having to drive 15 miles to come home for dinner, so I'm we're gonna move to town. There are those the kinds of choices that people make depending on what how their family circumstances are and their health is and their interests are, but I don't think there was any punishment attributed to the development area if more
people were living in the country. It was that we weren't doing a sufficient job to make it a wonderful place to live. Well, then I don't that I don't disagree with that assessment. I just don't see what the ratio is. Clear. So maybe What it I don't understand what the ratios are going for. I think the only reason we've mentioned ratio was to have some way of measuring an increase you know, more of an increase in development in the rural area for residential versus development area. Is it is residential growing at a faster rate in rural area versus development areas?
It might be an indication that we need to take a look at what we're allowing in the development area. So it allowed to you to have some data that you could follow. If you think it's useful and and I might just never understand it, then then then I'll just bow out and be like, okay. I'll trust you on that. I just don't I think what we're trying to achieve in one and the other are stated, the growth management plan gets at it, and why a ratio between what's happening in each one triggers something in the other, I'm not sure. I I mean, I get your point. Mhmm. But I think through the that's what this whole plan's about is trying to to
achieve something where that that density does wanna be there. But you're not gonna stop the person that wants 50 acres and a nice big $2,000,000 home. And if that's the right, they're gonna build that. But if a lot of those come online, all of a sudden, it flips the ratio. Well, why does that gonna change? So that that's okay. I'll let that be. So but I would like to see if if that makes sense to keep there or maybe hear what others have to say on it as well. What one was that? 1 nine. And While you're looking, the quarterly housing thing that we get that has the chart supplies that information regularly
to us to everybody right there. So that's basically covered and has been for years. Excuse me. I'm sorry. The, in the email for miss Dreyfus, it's one eleven revised managed to preserve slope ordinances to include affordable housing as a public benefit qualifying for an automatic waiver. I would I would think ex exploring that or discussing it, I don't see it in here. Well, it's not. It's adding a new. It would be adding 1.11 to Oh. Page 44. I mean, I think that's a good idea worth looking into. I think it's something that,
you know, to jump in and add it to the comp plan, I don't know that we have what we would want discussion wise yet. I'm I'm not saying that these are all gonna be happy. I see I see Emily's joined us out there. But I think it's something that I hadn't considered, and I I've, like, I put here explore at a minimum as my note. I don't know that I even know enough to say, yes. Let's put that in the in the in the comp plan. But there's a lot of the housing stuff that we'll get to later that I think to the afford to housing Albemarle, the policy, much like I said in the economic development strategic plan,
that can be dealt with in the strategic plan. So I'm not feeling like a a huge urgency that it must be stated in this list of objectives because this is not all inclusive. Is that fair? I'm looking at Anne and Jody. I don't see Jody. She stopped moving, so it doesn't get To move over into you. Then two, the 221, and this might not be the right place for it. At two two, this is on 45. Establish a policy that encourages developers there it is. To support multimodal fine with all of that, but I also wonder why it's just or not why not or more affordable units.
Is this just not the place to say, look. If you're gonna encourage developers, I get encouraging them to support the multimodal transportation infrastructure and program and investment in exchange for a reduction in the minimum oh, that's it. The minimum number of parking spaces. But if they wanna give up parking spaces and just give me more units, I'd be okay with that. I am. So why why is it limited to just those two items? I guess because it's encouraging and not. Alright. I'm fine with that. Miss Dreyfus's two seven was specific to data centers, and we just took care of that lay earlier today.
So I don't think that that is even relevant at this point about creating a fund where revenue from data centers could go to that. I'm supportive of that as a notion. Other communities have been using it that have got it. So, I'm not saying that I disagree with it. I just think pausing where we're at isn't gonna we can address it if we get a special use permit specifically to that. Now the tap fee waiver program, which is her 2.8, that was discussed during our grant program that we have as a specific way to do it. So we offer this oh, I thought somebody disagreed with me. Yeah. Fund an affordable housing tap fee waiver program to lower homeowners' costs,
connect the public sewer and water lines. So we do have a program in place for that. Whether or not we need to state it in here as a two eight, I I mean, I'm I'd be fine with adding it in. I guess it would be as a two six at this point just to call it out. But it's one of those things where I wanna make sure that we don't lose the fact that we have something in existence already. And I think that that that that even specific to that and the flexibility that we passed in our developer incentives can get at tap fee connections as well. It's called it gets focused on the tax rebate or the tax grant or whatever
the board is that we use, but the flexibility's in there or other things to try to achieve it. So that that I don't I like emphasizing the fee waiver program. And I think it also then speaks to those folks in our areas that don't aren't yet on public water and sewer because some of those neighborhoods, good grief, when they get hit with that Brook, man. Connection fee then to put the infrastructure in, it it's damn near impossible for them to do. Can't do it. So I think that fee waiver program is not just for new development or redevelopment. It should also be for helping folks that are in the development area,
getting older homes and neighborhoods onto it. So I I think there might be some way to call this out and and and put it up there to to be able to hit all those all those categories above. Or sense maybe. And, Ned, I thought that fund was specifically intended for the development area to help those folks in the development. We have a program. We had 254 houses. Yes. Uh-huh. So it may be that because I know the last time we diverted funds from we might I'm thinking of the same Mhmm. Program we had Mhmm. Because we didn't have enough applicants. Right. So it may help it to call it out at this level.
So food for thought. And I'm fine with the the, planning commissions. The their Mhmm. 42 add the following sentence. The runoff and improve are preferred over purchase of offset. I'm fine with that that addition. I I think that gets me through that to check that section. K. Quick comment on, page four. And this actually does relate to something in growth management plan, but I didn't have any problem with growth management plan. If you jump to Page four real quickly. And it's just a recognition that you've done something here that I applaud, and that is not only reference the 2022 build out analysis,
but also look a little bit at what 2025. And I noticed that in 2025 build out analysis you've referenced that if you really look at it, the North Fork adjustments have become 70. And so here we have at the bottom of the first column, the 58% again, yet in growth management page eight, you'd reference to 70%. And so I was just hoping that we'd get some consistency at some point with respect to which numbers we're going to reference if we're going to use those. Over the 70. And I,
I had no problem with the planning commission, with respect to the housing suggestions for this chapter, I I I gather from to Brian Galloway that he's suggesting the new 1.3 is not necessarily something we're going to go for at this point. The new 1.11, my problem is that we really haven't had a chance to bet a lot of these things and I would rather say something a little bigger, sorry, that says explore, revising, the management of and preserve the management prefers sloughs ordinance to include affordable housing as a public benefit, rather than just say that we're going to revise it for an automatic waiver.
I don't know because I haven't looked at this enough to know. And so then, in 02/2007, I think that that's moot and shouldn't be included, as well as the last sentence of what's proposed for 02/2008. And again, in in 02/2008, with respect to affordable housing tab fee waiver, this is really kind of a budget item, because we're basically saying consider additional support for, affordable housing tab we've fee, program. And and and so I'm a little leery about putting it in here. But if I did, I wouldn't definitely say fund because that's not,
kind of an appropriate use of the of the comprehensive plan budget wise in my opinion. And those are my only comments on that separate from the flow. Now I I jump in on the flow, and I and I wanna hear everybody's comments. But just a context here, this is a property that is adjacent to the Seat property, which currently has a distributorship on this Seat property, but it's been proposed for additional development. And that proposal is coming before the Planning Commission in mid December having been deferred. At one point,
I think I'll remind the Board it was actually withdrawn and we had a discussion where I proposed to look at these properties. And I was told by the board at that time that there was not support without more staff analysis and more time to consider it. So, we didn't pursue anything at that time with respect to that, flum for those properties. That particular property that is sweet spot property, was originally, I believe, in the rural area, and the request was made in 2015 to move it out of the rural area.
And it's actually, I believe, a change in the development area, boundary, correct me if I'm wrong, to add it into the development area where it previously had not been. And, to do it do so would be, at that point, was suggested industrial because of the, Deschutes proposal. And and with respect to what category it should be in, there are, you know, multiple categories that might be considered, the one that they proposed, but they're also you know, there's a light industrial category and others. So with that context, we'd like to hear people's thoughts on, this proposal that's been made today.
And we'll start with supervisor Lupisto currently. Still there? She's coming, I think. Maybe. We lose her? I'm gonna turn to Supervisor Pruitt in the meantime if we can get her back down. Can you hear me now? Oh, maybe she's here now. There she is. I'm here? Okay. Great. We can hear you. Okay. Good. I'm going to go back just a little bit because I didn't get a chance to, remember I pivoted over to, supervisor, Pruitt. K. Sorry. That's okay. That no problem. No problem. So regarding, the supervisor Galloway mentioned about, let's see. I'm joining as a panelist now.
Hang on. Hang on. I'm they're trying to get me. You're in. Well, we don't see you, but we can hear you. There you go. Okay. Got it. Okay. So, supervisor Galloway mentioned about the, the car lot lights and everything for the car dealerships, 1.5. But the fact that and we do have a black dark skies, you know, we're involved in dark skies and such. I I think, supervisor Galloway, point of clarification, were you talking about the light to reduce light spillover? You weren't talking about taking that away,
were you? No. Okay. Thank you. Alright. I agree with, at regarding the 1.11, to ex using the word explore if we use that at all. And regarding on Route 20, whether Vidot is perhaps building a crosswalk there, they're still working on that. That's in the process of being looked at. And important. The comparison I agree also with supervisor Galloway. The comparison with the rural, rural and development areas, the ratios,
I don't see that because in the rural areas, you have some, you know, you have large acreages. You have, large pieces of land where you don't have that in the development area. But I do see supervisor Malik's point of making sure that we make our development areas attractive so that it will, attract, residents and hopefully younger people, As we all know, according to the economic, development authority, we're not keeping people ages, what, 25 to 44. We don't have enough,
really, to keep them here. They go away. They they're educated here, they go away, then they come back later, but we'd like to keep them here. So that would involve having a robust development area and center of activity, frankly. But I don't see the ratios. I I just I guess the reason why I'm saying that is because I don't want staff to spend a lot of time, working on that. So those were my comments there. So now we're moving on to what supervisor Andrew said, which we're just talking about the the sweet sweet spot and the fact that it
was industrial no. Rural mile development area. It it is it is development area. I think it's something that we should, in my opinion, consider, because there's an opportunity there. I once again, I'm gonna use the flexible word to be able to have to be able to give that area other choices than just heavy industrial, which is what it is now. So a a community, mixed use would, I think, allow it to have,
you know, childcare hotels, r and d, flex, as opposed to just heavy industrial. So and I don't see I know some will say, well, let's go through a certain process, but just changing this allows this land, to be used sooner rather than than later. They still have to jump their hoops. But I think it's it shows our flexibility in the county to be able to address, needs that are arising in the county and that may arise in the future. We're not even sure what's going to be happening there, but maybe have have the flexibility to be able to support other things,
that may be coming. Those are my comments regarding that. Thank you. Representative Pruth. Yes. So, this one's challenging for me. I want to kind of begin by just observing. We're not even talking about what the zoning for it is. Right? It is currently r one and will remain r one regardless of what we do, meaning and and also acknowledge the the reality that I think is probably clear to the public, but we're contemplating this in large part because there's a there's a a considered development before us,
which is, it is not normal that most developments have the opportunity to tweak the comprehensive plan that their development will be reviewed under immediately before they get their development reviewed. I I do almost wonder if the conversation we're having today about this, this designation would be more appropriately held just at when that matter comes before us legislatively. I could be willing to consider it on the merits here, but it feels like an odd juncture to frankly, it feels like we're considering
a development's zoning on the merits here at this moment because we know of a proposed use that's going to be coming before us. It it and so for this reason, procedurally, I have some some misgivings about the way in which it's coming before us. We would normally have, you know, a set of in front of us that we'd be considering in this context. We would normally have, a vague outline of what we expect for and the results of what we decide in this moment on the sweet spot is just going to be a matter of whether or not in the staff recommendation or the
staff disapproval, there's an extra pit on one side or the other saying staff recommends is in accordance with comprehensive plan or staff distributes, which I personally find, as I'm sure staff knows and my peers know, a lot of comfort making my own mind that. So it it does not feel like a tremendously dispositive moment to me. But I might withhold final judgment on this until I hear some more thoughts from my peers because I I hate to keep I find it hard to see that this is going to be something that is tremendously decisive in in any context.
It it feels it feels small even for the development that this is coming for. Right? Because we can still make the decision regardless. Supervisor McKeown. Sure. To that point, I believe that the owners of this property have been working with staff for a good while to try and get this brought forward. And the and I could be wrong, but I and I understand why staff said we're not doing that now. I mean, I I get it, but I don't think it's for lack of the owners trying to get our attention.
And, certainly, we had an email from them in September, and I've forgotten the date now, and September 16, something like that, to deal with it. I would say, Mike, that we dealt with a piece of in Crozet immediately without thought of, you know, what is around that area or any other extraneous point. I see this as a development land or land in the development area that needs to be developed. If we don't develop land in the development area, then what will what are we doing? Right?
And regardless of what happens beside it, having that designation is still appropriate, in my opinion, for that location. Of course, the just changing the map designation, it's still gonna have to go through a zoning. It still has to, you know, a rezoning. It'll be a public process. So I don't think if if we deal with it just like the piece in Crozet, if we deal with it now, it doesn't stop the public process because that comes with the rezoning. But I do think as heavy industrial,
that is never going to develop into heavy. It's just gonna sit there, in my opinion. Light industrial is much more important, certainly, which with this which is what you get with, with the mixed use. So I don't I I am not challenged with the development beside it. That's gonna stand or fall on its own. But I do think that when you look at the map, this portion is appropriate to be mixed use, and to change that designation. And I'll come back to this later, but we'll see what other folks say.
So I would be as supportive of adjusting, the land from industrial to, commercial mixed use. Supervisor Malek. Or may yeah. Sorry. Go ahead. That's alright. Thank you. So before I begin, the, land that was in Crozet proposed at February fifty is less than an acre and has the possibility of one small commercial thing with almost no, you know, limited traffic in a place. I think I don't think it's I would not put those two in the same category.
You know? I would just open process. I would just traffic processing. So Yeah. And that was more than ten years that that's been discussed with staff off and on. So so that is not, anyway, I think there have been many parcels over many years which have been dealt with with a combined CMA comprehensive map CPA comp plan amendment, zoning map amendment, ZMA together. And that process exists. I would be, to in my mind, a very appropriate way to deal with this as opposed to us deciding now to give it some other criteria without knowing anything about what is proposed.
If I were looking in the crystal ball, I would much prefer it be an employment zone rather than residential because of the impacted very tricky traffic already in that location. And so that, is is a concern that I have. And I guess that's really all I have to, to offer at the moment. Supervisor Callaway. I mean, I just look at it from the standpoint of, considering where it seems that the industrial piece here in other places is some of the hardest to fill with industrial uses.
It seems like the either the community mixed use or the, Office RD FlexLI, those seem to be what we're focusing on for just strategically from an economic development standpoint. We certainly have the need for housing units. I mean, that that's clear. The site, I mean, I wasn't on the board when they did the Deschutes and all of that. I I, so, I mean, I I was on the outskirts, I guess, listening to all of the stuff that because that went on for a little while. But I'm not shocked to hear that no applications have come forward to do industrial
on it. So, I mean, you know, to say, do we have all the need, a lot of information? I mean, it's a decision of saying, well, what's the appropriate land use? We're not saying yes, no, or whatever to even if if the property owner wants to go there, you know, you're just making the change to the map to say, well, that's not a suitable spot for an industrial use. I don't. I think it's a tough I think both are tough pieces of property regardless of what you're doing, but industrial to me always has seemed particularly difficult. The only thing I ever thought was its proximity to the to the interstate should
be positive for for industrial uses. But trying to get things done around some of our interchanges has never been a fun topic or conversation in this county, period. So, I mean, I'm not I'm not feeling, I'm not feeling like we're doing anything or forwarding anything or approving anything on it to change it to match what the other property is. Seems to me to make sense to change it to the community mixed use or and since that includes the r d, flex, and l I based on where our other industrial places are
relative to then their proximity to other residential type stuff. So, I mean, I don't know. Part of me is what do you wanna lose the industrial land? But the the I'm not as concerned about the industrial land and that somebody's gonna have to remind me of why I should be because I'm just seeing the other two map, pieces as more important to us with what we're we're attempting to do. I mean, you know, we didn't it seems anytime an industrial piece does come to us, even when it's in the appropriate spot,
we have a hard time of getting around to approving it in some ways. There's seen quite a few I mean, some in the last year, and I don't think they've had problems doing what they need to do. Have And so crazy issue in terms of our, land use that we want to have more land taxed in a industrial commercial type of use rather than relying on residential for tax purposes. A quick question is and I know this was asked at the Planning Commission. Is there going to be a process for an applicant to bring forward at some
point, suggested changes for any property? Yes. We've, we didn't provide that slide for you. We talked about planning commission. So our next steps for implementation, like, we're gonna save for that for our public process you know, our public hearing with you all. But, yes, we are as far as our implementation stage, we work on creating a citizen initiated comprehensive plan amendment process, for property sort of like this or other ones that because what we have it now, there was used to be a process about that. But ten years ago,
staff came to the board, worked with the board to, eliminate that and thought that was a concern about staff time. But I think we recognize that, the venue to do it is either come and get a supervisor to look at it or to wait for master plans. And, of course, our master planning process doesn't probably move as quick as maybe the market changes. So we've staff, I will feel that this is a is a good thing to do to provide us this initiated conference plan amendment. We'll be working on that. Hopefully, we'll have that something to you all, as early as possible.
Thank you. My biggest concern about this is that it is sort of taking the CEAG application, which has not yet come before us and treating it as if, well, that's going to be all residential, we should be residential as well. And the community mixed use does emphasize as primary land uses residential along with some non residential uses. But first thing it says under this is residential typically density 12 to 34 units. As some people have heard and I have significant concerns about the connectivity of this
property for heavy residential use because it is as you can see in the picture kind of a little wedge between, Interstate 64 and 4 lane U. S. Divided Highway U. S. 29, which is proposed by the seat property for a a crosswalk across 29. But, be that as it may, I've previously discussed when we did the change the possibility of what these parcels had been under the 2015 comprehensive plan and and and whether that would change. And I was told with respect to the seek property that it was not appropriate
to make that change at that time. The board was not looking at it and saying, well, we could we could make that change that I had suggested because there wasn't enough time and enough information to discuss it. And now we're faced with an application to change something. And and and, frankly, I don't feel like we've had a lot of time to discuss it. That said, you know, one of the ways in which the previous designation could have been changed for even c would have been to office r and d flex light industrial, which includes residential and secondary use.
And I would be more comfortable if we to do this at all this time going in that direction, recognizing that I don't think, you know, that we have, any residential uses besides the rural ones, up up there currently. And that to to start making changes at this point in the comprehensive plan as opposed to waiting until we have the application before us and the chance for people, nearby to weigh in and others, who might be concerned in the community that it's, it's the wrong time.
Just curious about and I appreciate the concerns of the community and hearing from them, but the but if we changed it, they will have that opportunity during a rezoning. It's not we're not excluding the public from that opportunity. But it's because when it's comp plan that we expected already in comp plan that it's, you know, residential typically at 12:30. We deny or approve that all the all the time. I mean, that's not Yeah. Still a recommendation for how far the right thing is. Jody, I see you in the front row. Do you have any problems? Or you come up and just speak to this a little bit if you can.
So this change could be made now as far as staff is concerned? I mean, I'm just trying to figure out the ins and outs of all this. So Jody Filardo, community development director. This change right now would necessitate simply a change in a map. I think as staff, as the planning commission, and as the board has formally shared, we're all a little concerned with the speed and the way in which this request has come forward.
That said, to the point that all of you have made, the zoning map amendment is the time where you all can lean in, ask those questions for the proffers, ask for special considerations, like any shared use path connections or any of those kinds of things that you may want. This would not be the ideal process for bringing this forward. However, we are ready and willing to do whatever you all instruct us to do as far as the map change is concerned and things like that. But I think where the board will wanna weigh in for sure is the zoning
map amendment time. So I would agree with you on that. Right. And I would say that the planning commission spoke of this favorably. They were in a different place than we are were they were with their public hearing and approving the comp plan. We are a step behind them right now. So it seems like to me that if if we chose to, we could do it now because we have a public hearing coming up and a and a final approval next month. So we're at a little different place than the planning commission. Yes, ma'am.
And the planning commission, overall response to this was we don't dislike the request. Mhmm. We just don't like the process. Right. And they were in a different place than we are is what I'm saying process. Public hearing. They were at the public hearing Yes, ma'am. In the absolute final vote, which is a little different to where we are. Yes. Okay. Froze. I I would just voice. So, again, to my first point, I feel like what we're talking about is whether or not if one slide has an extra pip under the reasons to approve or an extra pip under reasons to
disapprove. I I really appreciate chair Andrew's, kind of suggestion because I think it might remove both pips. Right? If we, if we did rezone this as r and d light industrial, which has a secondary uses, residential, it would no longer be conforming with a primary intended use, and it also wouldn't be nonconformant. I don't want to assume what that would do about a staff recommendation, but it does feel like trying to find what is a neutral position. Because I I agree with your the point you made was basically, this is coming to us in an unusual process, which I hope you heard was also my concern.
It felt like norm I think this is a little different than what we looked at in Crozet also, but because in part here, we have we have a landowner, and there's a bit of tail wagging the dog. At this point, both the tail and the dog are jiggling. We can't stop that. But I I do wonder if just maybe r and d has a neutral way forward so we can evaluate it on the merits without the weight of of this decision we make without the factors here weighing one way or the other against it or in favor of it, I would be willing to support that.
Can I have a I think what you just articulated is really in support of the having the applicant do the EPA ZMA application together because it does not prejudice the process and, certainly something that staff has had lots of experience with over many years? The, this is anytime things are done so far outside process where there isn't a consistency between the way this thing is being treated versus what some other application is being treated,
then we're putting our county attorney into something that's difficult to defend. And we have to be able to make decisions that are going to be reliable and stand up and not have to be constantly zooming over here and zooming over there. I mean, I was there was great support a decade ago to remove the applicant generated ZMA CPAs because every month, there was an application coming in, and staff was spending an enormous amount of time chasing down all these things, many of which were denied
when they really needed to be working on comp plans and zoning modifications and things like that. So I am very reluctant to go back to that when we get to that discussion later on. But in some ways, this is a perfect example of how we're not really sure what the thing is to choose because we don't have any information. And so each of us may have different preferences, none of which may come to fruition when the applicant comes around. So I think the burden really should be on the applicant to figure it out, make the application process so that staff can do their work.
They can help us understand what the options are, and then the board can make a decision based upon the adopted ordinance. And in the intervening time, the comp plan will be adopted, and that will shake out, and then we'll have a true basis upon which, to compare things. So I'm also going to, just comment. You said that, you know, of course, the Board would consider an application at that time with proffers and all the rest of the conditions. But I think that doesn't quite get to what happens when this designation appears is
that there is a presumption that, well, of course, it's gonna be used for residential. It's now a question of how many units or whatever. And so I don't think that's been sufficiently vetted to make that decision. And I I I agree with supervisor Malek that I I think at this point, it's just not a good process to try to make a change. I don't know if we were trying to get in again or not. Yes. Thank thank you. I wanted to weigh in on this also. And for the public's benefit, Joe, miss Florida, could you tell us, for community mixed use,
how many residential units would be allowed and also for, what supervisor Andrews is suggestion suggesting? Okay. In your packets on development area land use page 17, I'm reading from community mixed use. The primary land uses are residential, typically at a density of 12 to 34 units per acre, and then nonresidential uses such as commercial retail, offices, hotels, conference facilities, schools, and child care, institutional and religious assembly.
The secondary land uses would be single family attached, townhomes, accessory units, or nonresidential uses such as auto, commercial sales, and services, and office research and development flex light industrial uses. So in this particular use designation, it it puts forward as primary your residential uses. In the office research and development flex light industrial uses on page 20 of the development area land use,
it cites as primary land use, nonresidential uses, offices, research and development facilities, flex spaces, and light industrial. And it excludes heavy industrial and heavy manufacturing. And then secondarily, it lists residential at densities of six to 34 units an acre, encouraging multifamily and live work units, nonresidential uses as such as commercial retail and institutional, and then light manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution activities plus as combined with office research and development reflect space.
So, really, these two different use types have one they're flip they're mirror images of the other in a way. You know, one has stress for residential as primary. The other has, nonresidential as primary. And and we are trying to get, more residential affordable housing. So that's a question for, for this board to deal with. I don't have frankly, I don't have a, a problem with the community mixed use or, frankly, even the the r and d is suggested by supervisor, Andrews. I'm I really like the idea,
that was brought up regarding owners, or I guess, through their through their supervisor owners property owners being able to come to us and say, can we make a comprehensive plan map adjustment? I'm seeing this just to expedite things because it almost seems like sometimes we're standing in our own way of progress being able to get what we want. We want affordable housing, but we don't really approve everything we should be housing having. We want light industrial or office space commercial,
but we don't seem to be approving that either. We we find ways, it seems to me, of standing in our way of not approving any of this. And and I think that's because a lot of people, frankly, in our county don't want anything to change. And if we don't change and improve and grow, that's that's gonna be a problem. Economically, that's gonna be a problem. So I I could actually go with either one knowing the staff will come back with, like I said, the plan for home property owners to be able to come to I don't know if it was
clarified that they would come to their supervisor or they could come to the county as was proposed, and then rescind it back in 2018. Someone if someone could answer that one for me? Sure. To clarify that point, what we're planning on doing, we being the community development staff, is planning on coming back to you as a next step with a a couple different process suggestions. And to the point of a property owner being able to ask for a comprehensive, land use designation change or a comprehensive plan amendment,
it's our intention to provide a process where the the comp plan amendment and the zoning map amendment come to you in a packet. And so that way, you're not approving or asking to approve a comprehensive plan amendment or a a flum amendment without understanding what the owner is wanting to do with the property. Because it seemed to us that before you were being approached with, oh, I'd like to change his comp plan, designation to something. But why? So if if it's,
embedded with a zoning map amendment, you know why. And with the zoning map amendment and that process that comes with it, you can ask for consideration from the property owner and give direction on special conditions that you wanna have happen with that zoning map amendment combined with the comp plan amendment. So it's not us staff running around all over the county figuring land use changes for you. It's really embedded with a project request, which seems to be more straightforward and logical.
And you feel the staff would better be able to manage something like that? Proceed as far as what they get feedback. I support what Jody just said. You so beautifully articulated what I was trying to get across. Thank you. So what I was saying am am I on? Is it You are. Miss Gallardo, thank you very much for that clarification, and you don't believe that staff would be unduly burdened with, your suggestion? We don't believe so because we believe that a comp plan amendment would be accompanied
by a zoning map amendment. So there's a lot of work that an applicant's going to do to in order to prep this project to bring it forward to you all. Okay. And I have a question for supervisor Andrews knowing that in both situations, you could have office, commercial, childcare, whatever along with housing. It's just that it's reversed under the category on the comprehensive plan. Could you just explain to me what would be the difference for for you? Why one over the other? Just wondering. Oh, I I primarily was pointing out that we have multiple categories in here and that
we're trying to make a decision between two without even considering the third. And that in my mind, the process is what is flawed. That said, you know, I don't want to make a presumption that while I agree that we need affordable housing and we need to find places for housing, that necessarily this wedge between 64 And 29 is a perfect place for that as opposed to the possible industrial or light industrial uses, which would benefit from the proximity to 29 And 64,
without necessarily burdening the residents with the exhaust and Jake breaks that I get complaints about all the time with respect to these roads, let alone the connectivity issues that come with trying to put a large number of residences in an area that has no walkable access to other areas. Yes, please, Supervisor Mather. I think we all heard Carrie Shepherd giving the update that later on this year is when the work at Fontaine is supposed to begin Mhmm.
Which has been twenty years in the process. That is going to dramatically change how those things function and increase the flow through on 29 South and reduce the options for any at grade crossing for pedestrians. I mean, it they kinda it just emphasizes the condition the the connectivity challenges of of this. Whereas if you are, making something and what you're making is going out on a truck, then that's what the road is designed for. It's not designed for people in that location in my mind
to push their brand to the grocery store. I mean, there isn't one anywhere around, and there isn't even an option for anything that is not vehicular based. So it's a seems like a a more prime location for business and research and things built into the ground to use the slope in an effective way. I mean, we've heard all sorts of great ideas over many years about how to how to use slopey situations, but I'm very concerned about the risk provided risk included to a high density residential unit over 50 acres times 15 or 20
or 30 units per acre. That's an awful lot of units times 10 cars a day with nowhere to go. And I'm very frustrated that this has now become a discussion about whether that's appropriate or not when it should be a discussion about whether the comprehensive plan Yeah. The process So to Sorry. I fell in I am flagging there. That's exactly I'm a bit impatient. Worry about this. I believe and we talked about this previously. You know, I previously, I will confess maybe this was already happening. I was not familiar with the the current ongoing potential proposals,
in fact, inflecting this plan. And I believe at that time when we earlier in the process at in phase three, we discussed this under the context of potentially redesignating all of it light industrial, r and d light Flex, which I was supportive of then. I still think if I did not have the inflection of current proposals, I would be thinking, oh, from a blue sky, best principles, first principles, just looking at the dirt. That light industrial flex makes sense for here. Something almost like what we have in Broadway. Right? That's what kind of typifies,
I think, the the flex light industrial. If the people who are interested in community use would be because the impact again, they're the same uses but inverted in priority and how we would contextualize them in priority. If the folks who are interested in designating as community mixed use would be amenable to that, I would be willing to join a vote to designate this as light industrial flex, and put it to bed. That was residential as secondary? Yes. Because that's what that zoning context means. I would support that as well.
Adviser Lapisia Pertley, supervisor Galloway? Yes. My con am I speaking? Yes. You are. Yes. My concern is this just makes it, it makes it harder, it seems, because the housing would be a secondary use, and we are trying to get additional housing. So, miss Florida, would you please explain to me how making how r and d, light industrial flex with residential as a secondary use? When would that happen? When would that because both of them both proposals allow up to 34 units per
acre. So when would that trigger being able to put in housing that we so need? All of these, evaluations will be made by staff when a proposal comes from an applicant. So when a ZMA comes forward, we would evaluate the ZMA based on, does it or does it not comply with the comprehensive plan? If it if it a project comes forward that has residential and it has light industrial mixed on an individual piece of property,
either of these land use designations would get a PIP, I think you're using, a check mark or whatever in our checklist on, yes, it complies with the comp plan. So, it if we did further enumerate in our checklist, which we don't always, but if we did, we could say, yes. Primary use is residential and secondary use is light industrial, and this provides both or the other way around. But either way,
if a project came forward that based on the market that has those elements in it, it would get a check mark for yes in compliance with a comprehensive plan. Okay. So you could actually build under either scenario, you could build more additional housing than as long as you have some, commercial office space light industrial under the RMD light industrial flex, you could actually have the housing you want. Excuse me, supervisor. Some of the the nonresidential uses under corridor mixed use are not inside the office
re research and development flex light industrial, and those are such as, institutional childcare, schools, religious assembly. So depending on what the market drove and the ZMA that was coming forward, if you chose the office choice and you were bringing a school or a church, that would not be in compliance with the comprehensive plan with that particular designation. But if what you all are interested in providing and protecting are the opportunity for residential in this location and the opportunity for light industrial in this location.
Both of those uses would be available to you with either of these land use designations. Thank you. Mhmm. Supervisor Cowley? Well, I mean, how I'm kinda making sense of where the conversation has taken us, we're now considering it, changing it from, one designation to yet a different designation than what the applicant wants, so they're still left with the ability to come forward and ask for the comp the map adjustment along with the project. So if they want community mixed use, it's obviously doesn't sound like there's any interest here in changing from industrial to community
mixed use. So if we change it to Office r d flex and l I, they still have to come forward and do the request. So at this point, I don't hear the support for the original request that was brought forward. Just back at best, there might be a three three vote on changing it to community mixed use. And at that point, then it's up to the applicant to have to come forward, and we do a comp plan amendment to the map and see the project and do all that then. So I don't see any way around that at this point. Changing it to the other piece, they would have asked for that if that's what they wanted.
I mean, they made the request. They sent the piece to us. So I'm acting like that's not part of this. So at that point, I'm like, well, I I would have been supportive, I think, to move it to where we're at, but at this it's just gonna have to follow a different procedure at this point. They can still achieve it. It's just gonna go through more a different a different realm than today. And that's just what I'm hearing coming out of people's mouths today. Are there others who support the staff plan to have the combined packet that they're gonna be developing? Because that would allow future boards to have the information they need and put the
burden of decision making on the owner where it belongs, to narrow the the scope of whatever is being requested. I am concerned that people will come in with this great combined thing and then come back immediately thereafter and say, oh, by the way, we can't find any office tenants, so we wanna put housing in all these rooms that we were promising was going to be business. So I just I really think that having the the combined process is puts the board in the best position, puts the landowner in the best position to get a decision that will stand.
Do you wanna make a comment about that? The only thing I just wanted to share is that that combined process is not yet in your comprehensive plan. That is a process that we're bringing you after the this hopefully gets adopted. So just to clarify. But it just wasn't before either. It just was. Correct. That's all. Correct. It's just a process. I'm going to speak again because, pardon? Should we let her? I like I think in to clarify, I think what I'm hearing is that we have a split.
We have a three three split, which means this dies on the vine for now, and I think we leave it alone. That's what I'm hearing, if you're okay with that. I mean, if we need to move on. But there were emotion on the table, I'd be calling the questions. So Yeah. But there's not emotion. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Your help. Board, in the interest of time and hopes that we have less controversial and this little discussion, I would propose we do the rural and transportation next if we can put a couple in. And, again, start with supervisor,
Lakisto Fertley. Yes. I I don't have any, major changes. I made my comments earlier at the work session. Okay. Supervisor Gross? I have nothing else. Supervisor of Kip. Take a pass. Supervisor Mao. Okay. Rural area, no marks. Hold on a second. And what are you doing in there? Oh, shoot. I am all set. Thank you very much. Okay. I'm sorry to jump in here with something. Well, actually, these are the ones that started I mentioned earlier. There are a number of places in this document where the list of objectives at
the beginning of the chapter doesn't exactly match the objectives later, and this has one of those. And I understand a rural area plan is something that is for future discussion, and so that would help with that. There was a I hope that's the same thing. I have no other comments on those. Sorry. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I was gonna ask you what chapter you were in, but Oh, we were in the rural. Oh, just rural. Okay. Rural and transportation. If anybody has any transportation. I missed the heading. Makes sense. Okay. And, actually, I I I I supervisor,
you said you didn't have any on these, I believe. I get a chance. Sure. Supervisor Galloway. Sorry. And these are I'm I'm I'm nitpicking a little bit on page six. Of which? Land conservation. So it's r a l u. Page six. Let me just get my reread. We have this the second paragraph third paragraph. So, it starts between 02/1966 and 02/2019. It finishes, land conservation also has fiscal benefits for the community as land and open space uses
requires less in public expenditures, agree, than the same land converted to residential uses. And also supports outdoor sports such as hunting and fishing. I don't like that phrase because it suggests a public use. And a lot of land that is out in conservation is not for the public to enjoy hunting and fishing on. Without permission. That's true. Okay. But there's a lot of there's a lot of signs I've seen that say stay off, and there are some that are more aggressive than just saying private property, but I don't like it when we suggest that this,
sometimes this conservation land or rural land is for everybody's public enjoyment other than to drive by and look at. There are other reasons. I'm not debating the protection of water and the things like that, but let's not try to outdo ourselves here and suggest that, oh, I was like, oh, there's a lot more place that I can do hunting and fishing than I thought possible. No. That's that's not how it that's not reality. So I'd just suggest perhaps you put a period after residential uses. And then it states the county's land conservation programs are necessary to support the growth
management policy. I thought the growth management policy was here to protect the rural area. Is this a chicken and the egg thing, or is it just one supports the other? I would say they're interconnected because without the water protection watershed protection in the rural area, then there won't be the water resources for the higher density in the growth area. I mean, I'm open to hearing more, but I've never once thought that our land conservation programs was necessary to our growth management plan. Our growth management plan, I thought, was in place to protect the rural area,
and then the rural area has a program that has land conservation within it. I guess, for decades, I've argued with people who say, we have to protect the pretty rural area. Yes. It's pretty, and, yes, I live there, but it's that was creating this urban versus rural argument, which is not appropriate and is not gonna get us where we need to go as far as the community as a whole. So it's a it's definitely based on it and think about it some more, but I just I'm not saying that the argument's necessarily
wrong. I just don't think it's one it it seemed I would I think it's a directional piece, and maybe I'm just since it's in the rural chapter, it's fine. It probably says something different in the development chapter that shows the directionality going the other way. Can we make suggested language changes so that we can continue with this? What if it's that county's land conservation programs support Yes. The growth management policy without saying are necessary to? That's in a way of something consistent with. Yeah. But just to get rid of the words are necessary to without satisfied. And then you said we're also doing transportation?
Yes. And I just it was in the session that I missed. Why the why there was a we're adding the call out for the funding line for Microcap, but there wasn't the rationale on the notes. This would be it was in the objective page, or I feel like it was in the It it's on page six in transportation on the right hand side, third paragraph. Funding for MicroCat will be reviewed with each county budget cycle. Well, the whole transit program will be reviewed with each county budget cycle. I just was I didn't know the rationale, so I was like, why is this here? We have a pilot program right
now. Supervise necessary to go forward. That Microcap right now is a pilot program, and we don't know if it's gonna go forward, what it will look like if it's gonna go forward, Ned. That was the context. And I was concerned because the first reiteration did not indicate that we, the board of supervisors, next year will re be revisiting Microcat to see if it even goes forward. So, the suggestion was to say that it will be reviewed with each budget cycle. Okay. That's what, am I fair?
Is that fair? Yes. That's what I recall too. Yes. That's all I had on those two sections. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Thriving economy. Question. I should have done thriving economy before, but housing, I think we'll try to tackle because that's an important one as well. So, okay, thriving economy and housing, but Drew's supervisor Lupiso currently is waving at you. Yeah. She's first. She's up. Well, no. No. No. This is going We got something else on the on the previous. Go ahead. On the land use. That's that's correct. Because it was transportation. This is land use. Once again, page six when we're talking about putting the period after residential uses.
So we're only talking about open space public land, not private land because, supervisor Galloway mentioned conservation easements, which that's private land. I guess my we're not saying you can't do anything on your own private property even though it's in a conservation easement or not. Correct? We're we're we're just simply saying that that we're specifically listing physical benefits to the community. We're not gonna put that in there as necessarily a community benefit. Okay.
Thank you. Okay. What are we on now? We're we're on to, thriving economy and housing. Well, I'm gonna bring up again the fact that we're not, looking to increase housing in certain areas where we in the development area where we do have room. That's a problem for me. So I'm I'm still going with that. I'm sorry. I I think we're not taking advantage of all the areas we have, but other than that, that's fine. Like to change the housing section. Well, I'd like to go back to the r and d and a community mixed use,
but maybe that will happen. But, no, specifically, on this section, no. Thank you. Thank you. Just a pleasure, please. So just to clarify, we're in the housing section currently. Well, and and also thriving economy if you have anything from there. Sure. Just because I don't have to jump back in here. I think this is maybe a good opportunity to revisit, some of the LAJC recommendations that are in front of us that were, adopted, by the planning commission. I am going to work from the bottom up. I think adding an objective, prioritizing seniors makes sense. I thought I had actually voiced that previously,
but maybe I didn't, and it's not there presently. So you're I'm sorry. You're on the he's on the legal advisers. Gotcha. Gotcha. Thank you. And where? So I'm starting from the bottom, HSG three At objective. Objective, and I'm going, up. I I've got this. Like the objective about AHIF, but I'm not sure, just as a process question, I I'm not sure, one, that there's no votes for it nor, two, that there's necessary appetite for creating budgetary forcing functions for ourselves. As much as I like that objective and I've made it very clear that I,
you know, am striving toward that objective at all times, I don't know that it makes sense for it to be enshrined in the comprehensive plan. You're speaking about the I'm sorry. No. He's moved up one to the I got you. One saying it's a budgetary amount. Yep. Okay. I'm with you. 3.1 as it so this would be proposing the language, that the next review should include consideration of a mandatory inclusionary zoning policy. First off, we have an inclusionary zoning policy. Right? It is not mandatory on all developments. It's mandatory on developments that are upzoning to include more than 10 units,
I think. I think that's the precise. Maybe it's 11. K. I don't remember. More than 10. More than 10. More than 10. More than 10. So eleven. Eleven and more. I don't think we're empowered to have an inclusionary zoning policy that does not attach to upzonings. That's correct. That's why we don't have a The the state enabling legislation only allows us to do in the context of rezonings. And so I don't think there is more that we could do. That being said, I do think it's important that we revisit our existing inclusionary zoning policies at least
as frequently as, as housing outmodal, plan reviews. So if there is a a bullet in there saying, the next review should include consideration of the appropriate levels of our inclusionary zoning policy or something to that effect. I would be supportive of that because that would be essentially saying we should be reviewing on some fixed basis the the rates in our inclusionary zoning policy. Right? 20 at sixty, fifteen at 80, that dog and pony show. I would support that because I do think that needs to be reviewed at least
that frequently, if not more frequently. I have no issues with 2.6, their amendment to, add the language and promptly address housing related needs. And, similarly, I don't think I have issues with 2.3. And their first objective seems innocuous. This board has heard that I sometimes have concerns that, treating homeownership and housing affordability and developing equity are all if you hold all of those goals in your hand at the same time, there are contradictory elements in them.
This does not emphasize equity specifically, which is kind of the main thing that creates those contradictions. Treating housing as an investment and creating housing that is affordable are at at cross purposes, and this was something that we sparred with briefly before. This does not specifically talk about homeownership in the context of investment, and so it's not it does not quite touch that third rail for me of making it contradictory in terms. I still personally don't think homeownership is the most,
effective way for us to be, charting a course toward home, affordability in this community, but, I don't know that I have a problem with including that as an objective. Thank you. Supervisor McKeown? Okay. So that leaves me with looking at because I didn't have I don't have anything else other than we're looking at Emily Dreyfus' legal aid justice, and you've remarked That that is what I'm doing. We're also reviewing the whole Yeah. Thriving economy and housing chapters. But I Just to speak to yours. Right? And I don't think staff has laid in on any of these.
Always makes me uncomfortable. Having said that, I've had I really do think that prioritizing and incentivizing affordable housing for seniors is certainly something that we need to do. But I thought we mentioned that, and that's why I'm looking at staff about weighing in. I thought we had mentioned prioritizing senior housing already. I think we did, and maybe it just didn't make it into this this version. Okay. Maybe I'm remembering it from the other draft. I think so. Well, I certainly don't have a problem with that, including the development of smaller units because that gets to the tiny houses that we've
talked about. Right? So I would agree with Mike on that one. I don't have a problem with that one. But I don't I just don't wanna start going back and revisiting everything that you know? I mean, it as far as I'm concerned, we have preserved slopes all along the Internet interstate highways and highways that are not developable now because they get they're preserved, and they can't be developed. And I have a question about why we're doing that. I think we already talked about that one in the development area land use. I'm just saying, though, that's here. Yeah. I'm looking at it as 1.11.
1.11. Yeah. He was working up. Yeah. So, yeah. Yeah. So I was jumping around. I must admit I I went down instead of up. But since I haven't really had a chance to look at this very carefully, but I certainly, I'll let every other folks take their turn. I don't wanna end this up because it's getting late. Supervisor Malik. Thank you. I have, on the housing, the 3.1, I I guess what I'm would like to see more of, and maybe I've missed it, is emphasis on the affordable existing affordable units. We seem to focus a lot on building new ones and changing all the rules
to build new ones, but what about the I mean, and if you drive through the Whitehall District rural area, you will see, little after another, hundreds of smaller, older homes that are affordable, had have been in the same families or new people. But the drive to you fit works. It's not just driving in from Frederick, Maryland to go to DC. It's driving in from the back of Whitehall to work at the county office building. It's people who find more affordable places to live way out in the country. Maybe they've been there for generations. Maybe they just did.
So the the maintenance of keep making sure that we're doing what we can to protect the naturally occurring affordable units is what I'm always harping on, and that's what I'm hoping we're getting at with that first bullet in 3.1, but I don't know. Supervisor Malek, if I if I may, and, chair, if I may, Tanya Yes, ma'am. Didn't we have, an addition from the last work session about naturally occurring affordable housing? Yes. I was just looking for it. I'm looking for it. I we've we've had that conversation.
I just I'm not finding the action item at the moment. Very good. So let us take it under advisement, and we'll we'll wait for that that homework when it's ready. On the 1.11, I've there are reasons why critical slopes are not built upon. Look at California landslides as a perfect example, and that is not, I'm I'm not in support of the, the additional 1.11 to get have automatic waivers for these because of a use that's proposed that people like because that's a high risk environment, and I'm not willing to put people who are vulnerable for other reasons into risk
because of where their house is. Thank you. And that, I guess, we took care of that. So I think I am alright with where I Right. So on t e, thriving economy, page 11, I'm glad to see two three. For two four, I don't know if this can be incorporated into two four. I think there's some mixture here with a couple of these pieces. But what I'm looking for, either as a new objective or somewhere as an add in, is to incorporate exploring or supporting, professional development for GIS training to use
strategically to support the economic development strategic plan. So, like, I don't know if the tier IDs exist in the GIS. Like, if I look up a North Fork, does it tell me that there's a tier five site there? It may or may not, but what I'm getting at and staff may there may be folks with this skill set on staff now who have the ability with Esri or the GIS to use it in a way to identify best uses from an economic development standpoint through the use of the GIS.
That is a that is a the g I we have the capability to do theoretical kind of analysis using the GIS to to plug in what this site could do for us. Now we have a strategic plan that's been voted on and and etcetera. So what I'm calling out is staff's got this skill set and we've got the ability and it's just a call to action, don't need that in there. But if we don't know where our staff's ability is, I would think they would all need the training to be able to get to that level and use the functionality of the tool to support the EDSP.
So that's what I'm asking to call out or to work in here somewhere. But supervisor Galloway, may that be perhaps a better budget conversation? Because I know that the Esri product as a product does support that kind of analysis as you said. And we have some very smart GIS people. I just don't know if we have a lot of them, and given what they've recently been going through now I don't I'm going to disagree with it being a budget item because what I'm looking at is specific actions called for right now Mhmm.
That that skill and ability is going to support, and I want that added in here k. To accomplish these current actions. Mhmm. So I don't think that's a budget item. I'm calling out that, yeah, these are things we're saying we want to be able to do. We have a capability in a system right now. I don't know if we have the ability to take what's available to us and make it active to accomplish these goals, and I think that's important. So if I would I would like to try restating what I think I'm hearing.
What I think I'm hearing is you are interested in having g the GIS tool be enhanced to provide support for the economic development plan. I think we already have the enhancement is what I'm saying. I think the GIS system, as it exists, is it's already in there. We need the people to be able to go in and use it that way. So I'm looking for that support for the staff. And yes, it's a professional development, so I skip where you're saying it could be a budget item if that professional development doesn't exist, but a lot of these things are budget items.
If we left them out for budget items, they wouldn't be in here to begin with. So I'm saying is we've got identified goals to achieve the d e d s p, including develop a policy for the acquisition of land for economic development. We have number two four falls into that. I even think two five is there. You can you can, even do rezoning kind of analysis or theoretical analysis with possible rezonings. But I just don't know you know, I'd love, you know, if all our GIS people were in here and then they were like, what's he talking about? I know how to do that.
We just we just need to do it, or we we need to do it at a different level. It might that might be the answer. And if that is, great. Doesn't need to be called out in here. But if we don't have that ability, I think it's something that we should call out and say, yeah. Let's let's use the tools we have to the best of our ability and make sure staff can do that in support of these goals. Would it be acceptable to you if we touch base with the IT director and got some clarification on that? And we'll if if they think they, need some support,
we'll be happy to put it in here. I I don't wanna undercut skill development because I do believe through just interactions with folks from Esri that that supply it. Mhmm. So I know what the functionality cape possibilities are. So it's not like we have to get an upgrade or an add on. We got it. I just don't know what our capability is. Okay. And if we have the capability, it's gonna be it's gonna go a long way to help especially two three and 24 for sure. And if if we don't, then to support 23 and 24, I'd like it worked in there. Thank you.
You want me to go quickly through the housing stuff? Yes, please. I think this is the one section. I understand why it's there, so I'll throw it out. But when we're talking about median median home values and the rent data, I think since we know what the 2025 data is, it's important to call it out because it just emphasizes it's greater than we know it's the the median home value is, like, $4.92. We know it's higher than that now. So why are we I mean, I get it. You wanna stay consistent with the data you're using throughout it, but those two data points, I mean, we're almost pretending like the issue isn't as bad as it is.
So could you give me a page reference perhaps on what you're asking? Begin I think it was in the introductory section to the housing. I believe it may be page four. First bullet. Is that what you're referencing? It's right at home value. Yeah. Yeah. 23. It was $4.92 8, so that's page four. And rent is $16.00 7. We already know that's I mean, I get it. You're referencing and you're trying to stay consistent with the '23 data. But you know what? For this particular item, we know the issue is worse than it is, and we're just we might as well I think those are two points that we
can update. Housing Albemarle, it talks about updating every five years. I'm fine with that as an ongoing piece, but next year is the fifth year for current housing Albemarle. So I'd like to call out in here, since the comp plan's in front of us, an immediate review of housing Albemarle, not at least five years for the next iteration. I think that's yeah. Paula? Which one do you have numbers? I've I forget where it calls out the five year piece. Yeah. I know somewhere it says that the housing Albemarle needs to be updated at least five years. That must be in the It's the five in the objections.
Key maybe. We'll make I didn't write down the I didn't write down the number on that note. Let's see. But I know it's called out in here. Oh, here it is. Three one, page 16. Update housing out more at least every five years. I'm fine with that after the next iteration. The next iteration can't wait till year six or year seven is my point. So I'd like an immediate call out just like we did with economic strategy economic development. That's done. That housing Albemarle needs an immediate review following the AC 44 adoption, and then it would follow the five at least,
the five year piece to follow. I think I'll agree with what supervisor Pruett was saying relative to the revisit of the points that he was making around the, inclusionary zoning and and what you were speaking to with with that. I think that would work in there then because then it lets us just get into the housing policy and really wrestle with things versus trying to force them here in the comp plan. Alright, to try to stay in order. So three one, I've addressed yeah, the mandatory inclusionary zoning policy. I I've I've spoke to that earlier. I think we wrestle with that in affordable housing.
I'm fine with adding the objective ensure a path for the investment fund, not for the 10,000,000, but to continue to receive dedicated annual funding. I like that call out. I'm thinking more so of the operational piece that we started last year with the dedicated tax, not the one time funding. So if there was a word way to wordsmith to continue to receive dedicated annual funding, I I'm ready to commit to that. Yeah. You just I don't know if everybody else is, but Yeah. I'm not committing to the annual number. Right. And that was what stopped me,
Ned. But I also think that this has to be connected in the in the Albemarle housing conversation to what I still feel is the need for a trust fund, not the investment fund that we have. And then the committee, there's a place in here that calls for this advisory committee, which is three seven on page 17. Mhmm. Yes. I'm not looking for an advisory committee. I'm looking for a trust fund with a committee that operates in the same manner and and style as our economic development authority,
and that's different than an advisory committee. So, I don't know that we argue with that right now for the comp plan. I think we've already called for that in our housing Albemarle. That's the first most frustrating part is that we've all that the passport voted on housing Albemarle calls for a trust fund, and it calls for a committee to deal with the trust fund. This language is directly from the housing Albemarle. That's why it's in Hawaii. Is. The where the the, 37? 37? Yes. HA7. Mhmm. Says HA. How's it? Yeah. So,
then we need to do it. We're not doing it, and we're we passed it in '21. And somehow, we're you're always keep telling us you're waiting on our direction. I don't that's the this is the most baffling thing I've ever con it confounds me. The board voted on it. I thought that was direction, but we've never done it. And, we've had a conversation just a few months ago about the trust fund, and we're still not doing a trust fund, and same with the committee. So thank you. This but this says standing housing advisory committee, which is in our housing album.
Which I'm saying the advisory committee needs to be defined in a way that our economic development authority is defined, not just advisory. So I'm I'm some clear countering what's in housing Albemarle for the advisory only portion. Economic development authority brings it. An economic development project comes in. They say economic development, we just gave them more authority the last time and they said, Okay, you want a $500,000 incentive. The EDA goes into closed session. They debate the merits of it. They come out because it's economic development. That's the closed session. Housing probably wouldn't be in closed session.
And then they say, recommend this to the board. We're supportive of it. And they even can make some decisions of dollars without because we've given them the authority to. That's what I think the housing committee how it should function. They can deal with scoring of projects and things that have come in to determine grants going out, then it comes to the board, they've done the work, and we get to say yes or no. I don't think that an advisory committee gets that done. So I'm just speaking my mind. Mhmm. 332 let's see.
26, work with nonprofit. I I get why she put promptly addressed in 26. It's just as funky wording. 26 is just just weird. You know, work with a nonprofit housing partners, public health organizations, and other providers to engage with community members and identify housing and related needs, well, to promptly address, I think, is what what they were you know, just get it that. I just think that's a wordsmithing thing. And 23, it looked like you already changed this. I couldn't see the difference between what was being asked in the legal aid justice language in two three.
They're are they aren't they the same? And other incentives. What's the change? The bold the bold language. Oh, my god. I read that five times and couldn't find what it was changing. I mean, I'm not bold. Where is it in the bold? And other Oh, I'm on my sheet that I printed out before we got handed those. That's why I don't see the vault. But thank you, Jim. And then, the fur her first one, employee strategies to support low income homebuyers, my thought was that why can't that that seems to me rationale wise to be connected to the overarching objective up top,
which was number four, if I'm not mistaken. Preserve and maintain the county's aging housing stock in the rural or no. Increase got myself confused on my note. Long term of income. Or add to number four. I think my I think my point if I'm understanding my own note or add to number four, same rationale, but for futures. We're trying to preserve and maintain the county's aging housing stock in the rural and development areas. You can help with homeownership for the new folks, future people, come here, in the same way. So there might be a way to to get at that point either in the
overarching objective or adding to a new objective in number in number one. I'd be fine with that. We try to do that through our work with the community land trust, and we're sending money out of the housing investment fund now to support this effort. So this isn't like a new thing, unless I'm misunderstanding what she's saying. Homeownership and by getting, at low AMI for homeownership is the one of the hardest things to tackle. And it seems like the community land trust model is the only way to do it, and cash is what we use to support them. So that's how how we're doing it now.
I think it's worthy of calling out. So, supervisor Galloway, I'm giving you a confused look because I'm looking at the, housing objective number one on page 15. Is that what you're talking about? I think I think because she didn't she had HSG one. So that read it and wrote my note, I was looking at the overarching objectives. So my guess is, she's asking on page 15 on behalf of legal aid to add the objective there. I'm fine with it. I'm all I'm saying is I'm fine with adding that new objective there. Okay. Something we do,
And if you can incorporate it somewhere else, to Anne's point earlier, we we do both. It's a it's a parallel track. We wanna keep people in naturally occurring and keep them in affordable homes, but we also want people to be able to not just have to rent, and get at home ownership for folks that need the the subsidy, and that's what this speaks to. And we don't really, in any of our actions for the last four years, other than sending the dollars to the community land trust and helping in that way, it get at home ownership in my way for new folks. So this would be a purchase subsidy as opposed to a house maintenance Yes.
And weatherization, which is what we've done certainly. I think I don't know. I mean, others might have a but I think when we send money to, to the community land trust models where they buy the home and then they get the purchase price down for the buyer, they need the subsidy. The cash goes to help reduce the purchase price for the first buyer. Then they build some equity in. They remodify the market, and they use the subsidy to keep the ongoing piece so that the second and the third person can build some equity and get into it at an affordable rate as well. And the extra comes back into the pot. The some ex some portion of equity equity comes back,
so it's not just the first owner. It's not just the it's similar to what Habitat does, and, I mean, they're they're having success. We've we've put money into this, so it's not like we'd be doing anything new. We've already put out dollars for this, and it's been successful. Okay. Three six. So I'm on page 17. That's not a note. This that's fine with note. Yep. I've already made that point. $7.03. Oh, $7.03 should be acquire, I think, instead of purchase. Explore opportunities to purchase blighted properties, I think, should read explore opportunities to acquire blighted properties.
Alright. Thank you. Anything else? I don't know. We were just up to housing, right? We're just up to housing. And my only concerns are about the, as it's suggested from the public. Again, I'm really unhappy with the process of just those being handed to us mid September, and we haven't really got any feedback from staff with respect to them. But that said, you know, I don't think that HSG one, add new objectives should be added as a new objective. It should be incorporated somewhere, because we need to not just have an objective, but have actions and do more to flush it out if we haven't done that.
But if there's a way to recognize that, we wanna support low income home buying in some way, I'm, you know, supportive of that generally. I have no problem with and other incentives in 2.3. I I I concern with 2.6 the way it improperly address housing. I'm not sure what that's driving to. It previously said to identify housing and related needs, we're going to address those. I can revisit our inclusionary zoning policy. I don't want to be under a mandatory policy implemented guarantees the way it's written
the way it is now. And with respect to housing investment fund, I don't think that that number should be included as to how much it's going to be funded because I don't think we've had that discussion sufficiently to agree on it. But I have no problem with dedicated annual funding. And I don't have a problem with prioritizing some affordable housing for seniors, although I again, I I would rather have staff look at this and see where the appropriate place to put that if it's not already there because I'm not convinced that these some of these things aren't already there in some form or another.
I think they find added Just to tack on because I didn't make that point. I think the call out for seniors should attach the 60% AMI or lower. I think we should target low income seniors, not just seniors. I'm hoping that that takes us to the end of housing. However, at this time, it is reaching order of six, which obviously makes it almost impossible for us to have any closed session. And I'm not sure whether we have time to finish anything further without having skipped a meal completely or any other break.
You'd need a break. Right. And and, there was as, as the board may be aware, there was other than boards and commissions, there was one item. I'm not seeing the presenter in the audience right now, so I'm not sure whether she she would be available to perhaps have the closed session after, after the board concludes both the public hearing this evening as well as the, the remainder of its consideration in the work session. I see mister Richardson has some thoughts as well. We have an opportunity with the second item to push it to November, to where the Board could do boards and commissions with the time they've got right now. And then the other item that had been planned could be pushed to November?
That is my understanding. Okay. And then we also need to decide whether we're going to come back and continue working on this, if that's acceptable and then go to the public hearing after that. Or and and I'm happy with with what you're saying, but I would like to propose that. I'm gonna do a hail Mary here before we leave. I'd like to put a motion on the table that's a hail Mary before we leave and go into closed session. Okay. Please. Alright. I'm going I would move that we adjust the sweet spot of Albemarle Parcel 75
Dash 48, a c c a C 44 future land use map designation to office r and d flex light in light industrial. Second. If that's the right way to word it. Yes. We have a motion from supervisor McKeel, second from supervisor Prulett without objection. Discussion, the clerk will call the roll. Ms. Malek? No. Ms. McKeel? Yes. Mr. Pruitt? Aye. Mr. Andrews? No. Mister Galloway? Yes. Miss Lupista Kirtley? Aye. K. That settles that. Thank you. Thank you. I need to be doing a motion for mayor. Sure.
Then we do need a motion to go into closed session if we're gonna discuss boards and commissions. Correct. So just the the first item Send it to that. Just the first item on the closed session item. Yes. I'd like to move that the board of supervisors convene a closed meeting pursuant to section two decimal two, tax three seven one one a of the code of Virginia under subsection one to discuss and consider appointments to various boards and commissions, including without limitation, the Community Policy and Management Team, the Crozet Community Advisory Committee, the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board, the Places twenty nine Hydraulic Community Advisory Community Advisory Committee.
We have a motion we have a motion from supervisor Pruett, second from supervisor Malek without objection. Clerk, call the roll. Miss Malek? Yes. Miss McHale? Yes. Mister Pruett? Aye. Mister Andrews? Yes. Mister Galloway? Yes. Miss Lupista or Kirtley? Aye. And I if if if a bullet I'll indulge you. Super Just a just a clarification on on the board's expectation on when we come back on the remaining, chapters of AC 44. So, I guess I would like to just check-in whether, do we have a county executive report? We do not. Okay. So,
I would suggest that we probably should hear public comment. Okay. And then go back to AC44. Tonight. Unless tonight. Well, I'd like to does staff have a preference as to if we could do both tonight, which they would prefer to do first, the public hearing or continue with AC44? I would recommend we do public hearing. I would do. Do the public hearing. Okay. Then we will come back for AC44. Is that acceptable to that? So, after coming back and certifying the closed session, there'll be the public hearing on the proposed, ZTE. Well, there'll be public comment and then public hearing. On the proposed ZTE and then,
finishing work on AC44. That's acceptable. And we need a motion or anything. We're okay. Then the agenda. Okay. Alright. Welcome back. Sorry for the late start. And, supervisor, you bring us out a closed meeting? Yes. I'd like to move to the board of supervisors certified by a recorded vote that to the best of each supervisor's knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting. Second. We have a motion from supervisor Pruett, second from supervisor Malek. Without objection, if the clerk will call the roll.
Malek? Yes. Mister Figuele? Yes. Mister Pruett? Aye. Mister Andrews? Yes. Mallaway? Yes. Miss Lakisha Kirtley? Aye. Thank you. And I believe we have a motion coming out of closed meeting at, we do. You. We do. I move that we appoint to, excuse me, the Crozet Community Advisory Committee, Wagasal Mulhem, to the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board, Adrian Phelps, to the Places twenty nine Hydraulic Community Advisory Committee, Forrest Mitchell, and to places twenty nine RYO Community Advisory Committee,
Martha Davis and Rick Seaman. Second. We have a motion from supervisor McKeel, second from supervisor Malek. Without objection, call through. Malek? Yes. Yes. Pruitt? Aye. Mr. Andrews? Yes. Mr. Galloway? Yes. Ms. Abuser Kirtley? Aye. Thank you. Board, I'll look to the county executive to find out if there is a county executive report to see Not this evening, sir. Thank you. Which brings us to public comment on matters previously considered or currently pending before the board other than scheduled public hearings. And List is coming.
The list is coming. You have some sign ups. And Vice Chair McKeown will read the rules. In person only. We are in person only. Maybe not. It's here. Okay. All right. During the time set aside for public comment on matters previously considered or currently pending before the board, individuals may address the the board of supervisors. 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. 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 will indicate 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 Almar County, your magisterial district. Address comments directly to the board as a whole. Any written statements or supporting material may be given to the clerk. If 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. Please do not speak from your seat or out of turn, and all comments are live streamed, recorded, and published on the Almore County website. And our first speaker is Marianne Doyle. Welcome. If you have something to hand out to bring it to the clerk, we'll make sure we get it. Mister Fritz. Thank you. And make sure, dear, you adjust the mic so we can hear you clearly. Okay. Can you hear me okay? I think so. Sounds good. Okay. Good. Wonderful. My name is doctor Mary Anne Doyle. I am the executive director of the Center for Nonprofit Excellence,
and I'm just here to welcome you all if you have the opportunity to join us on October 16 at our day of learning. That'll be held in the downtown library from 09:15 to 04:15PM, And we'll have a break in the middle for lunch, of course, and we'll, we'll enjoy food on the downtown mall and help to generate some business for the mall as well. We'd love to have you. We've got four wonderful sessions that'll be addressed. The Center for Nonprofit Excellence, we are a champion, a learning adviser a learning partner, excuse me, an adviser for Virginia nonprofits.
We were founded here locally. We will be celebrating twenty years. Next year. And the best way to think about, CNE is if you think about your favorite nonprofit, and you think about do they have the resources that they need in order to thrive. And I suspect that your answer will be no. And if that is the case, then we would hope you would send them our way so we might support them and help them with providing the strategies, the structure, the education necessary to ensure that they do thrive. I've also provided a copy of our impact report, and that was just published not very long ago, about a month and a half ago.
And that gives you kind of a backwards look on what we've done, what we've accomplished over the past, year and a half. It's an eighteen month impact report. You also see a couple of, impact stories included there. One of them is local here to a nonprofit that serves our community both in Charlottesville and Albemarle County called Crescendo Puntos. So I hope that you have a chance to read that story and hear the testimony of both, what they have experienced, how they are serving in our communities, and the way that CNE helps to build their capacity and support them. And I would also invite you to follow us on social media where we continue
to lift up stories of local nonprofits in alignment with our seven actionable principles and also, you know, just demonstrating the tremendous impact that they have to serve our communities. The hashtag there is nonprofits get it done. And so, we're really excited for, for that campaign as well. That was all that I had to say other than thank you for your tremendous support of the Center for Nonprofit Excellence and of nonprofits in our community. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Our next speech speaker, I'm sorry, is Alicia Lenahan. Good evening. My name is Alicia Lenahan.
I live in the Scottsville District. In the months that ICE presence and actions in our community have been raised at these meetings, you have been presented with facts and compelling arguments made by preachers, teachers, and judges. You have heard from the Latinx community, and you know that over 1,500 community members support the anti ICE resolution. You've received many messages from constituents pointing out that unmasking and identifying federal agents is not radical and will, in fact, make us all safer. In a decision handed down yesterday,
senior judge William G. Young wrote that, quote, masks are associated with cowardly desperados and the despised Ku Klux Klan. In all our history, we have never tolerated an armed, masked secret police. Carrying on in this fashion, ICE brings indelible disgrace to this administration and everyone who works in it. He went on to reject so called legitimate reasons for masking as disingenuous, squalid, and dishonorable, writing that ICE goes masked for a single reason, to terrorize Americans into quiescence.
It is all about intimidation and control. There is an expectation that you, that we, will obey the administration and do so voluntarily. Institutions and individuals must push back every time they have that opportunity. There are countless judges and prosecutors who still manage their dockets without fear or favor. There are state, county, and city leaders who have refused to bend a knee to this administration, all honoring their respective oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of The United States, even in the face of threats,
personal, professional, and levied against entire communities. I'll borrow from a letter from a Birmingham jail written by doctor King in 1963. He asked whether the greatest stumbling block in the civil rights movement was, quote, the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice, who prefers a negative peace, which is the absence of attention, to a positive peace, which is the presence of justice. Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of
ill will, which brings us here. When something bad happens, will you cling to comfort, caution, and convenience? Knowing that all our rights hang in the balance, will you continue to sit here in silence? Thank you. Sure. The next speaker, and I'm not quite sure about that, the last name, but it's Linda Burchfield or Birchfield. Is she here, Linda? See anyone. So I think she's not here. So that's it. Mhmm. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Ward, this brings us to our public hearing this evening.
TA twenty twenty five-two, structure height regulations in industrial districts. And this will be, led by Mr. Bill Fritz. Welcome. Thank you. Development process, please. If I could get the presentation on the screen. Here we go. Bill Fritz at the Community Development Office. This is a text amendment for, the zoning ordinance, chapter 26.4. Currently, the code limits the building height to a maximum of 65 feet in the industrial districts. And there are very limited processes to allow for any increase in that industrial height.
We've become aware, that there are manufacturing processes where you may need to exceed that 65 foot height limit. The process to increase that height limit right now, there were only two ways. One is by a variance, which is processed by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and the other is through a rezoning requirement. The variance requirements, you need to demonstrate that there's a hardship. And it is very unlikely, it's one of the criteria. And it's very unlikely that anyone would be able to demonstrate that to the point
of qualifying for variance. That would then leave open the option to go to a rezoning. What you would need to do is go to a planned district. When a planned district is processed, the board can waive a lot of provisions in the ordinance or modify a lot of provisions in the ordinance. And one of those is height. That's a time consuming process for both the applicant and the county to just do it for that purpose. So, we identified the special exception process as a, efficient way to process those increases without just applying it universally across,
all the industrial properties. The special exception process will allow the board to evaluate the individual location, need, and appropriateness, and to put necessary conditions on a special exception that might be associated with the, the height increase. So we're recommending that the ordinance be amended as follows, as shown on your screen, to simply add a provision that says you can ask for a special exception and the board can grant a special exception to increase the height. This was reviewed by the Planning Commission,
recommended unanimously for approval, and we're recommending approval of it also. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. We'll go through our order starting with Supervisor Lapisto Kertlik. I have no questions. Thank you very much, mister Fritz. Thank you. Supervisor Pood? I don't believe I have any questions. Thank you, supervisor McHugh. No questions. Supervisor McKeown? Thank you. Supervisor McKeown? No questions? And I have no questions as well. So, with that, I will open the public hearing. Do we have anyone signed up to speak? I will close the public hearing.
And in that case, look to the board with a motion on the screen to see if anyone would like to make this motion. I move to adopt the ordinance, included as attachment d. Second. We have a motion from supervisor McKeel, second from supervisor Malek. Without objection, we'll call the roll. Malek? Yes. Miss McKeel? Yes. Mister Pruitt? Aye. Mister Andrew? Yes. Galloway? Yes. Miss Leticia Kirkley? Aye. Thank you. And that, brings us to the conclusion of that part of the business. If it's okay,
then we would go back to our discussion of AC44. So close to having such a short meeting. Excuse me? We were so close to having such a short meeting. We'll see. Of course. And with that, do we need a moment for transition? You wanna get the, it's already up. Wow. And you're taking over? Looks like it. No, sir, you're in charge. Well, I mean, that's right. Thank you. I'm sorry. I misstated that. So, Board, I would say, you know, let's look to the environmental stewardship chapter and the perks,
recreation, and open space chapter. They kinda go together in a way and, see if there are any concerns about the language as presented. Supervisor Lapisto Kirtley, they could start us off. Yeah. Yes. I'd like to go back to the housing because I never got a chance to, weigh in on that. And I just wanted to, talk about the fact that we're allocating additional monies for, low income families for purchase of a home. But what I'm I know that we were heading toward an area of helping people,
especially low income people with, rentals, which I fully support. I just wanna make sure do we have and I guess I'm asking Jody. Do we have any kind of a mechanism for making sure that when we do help people with housing, because we because we all know that it's not just the down payment, that there's the upkeep of the house and the taxes and everything like that. But is there a mechanism for making sure that we're being successful in this? Because I remember when I was on the when I first got on the board,
we had affordable housing, and yet we never had a list of people who would qualify. That whole program was not successful. I just wanna make sure that as we spend taxpayer dollars, as we spend money, I wanna make sure these programs are successful. So how do are we watching that, or do we are we getting a sense of, yes, it's being successful? What's our process? That's what I'm asking. Yes. You go ahead. You have an answer? Thank you, chair. Supervisor Lupisto,
currently, I would say that since that day when we had no list of people that really needed our assistance with housing, since that day, the board has authorized the hiring of and promoting of, doctor Stacy Pathea. And Stacy has put together a housing office. It is her charge to, manage the housing programs on behalf of our taxpayers and the board. So I would say I don't have the answer to that because that is outside of my bailiwick. But you have a director on staff here whose whose job it is to monitor
and manage the housing office. And I would recommend that we direct those particular questions her direction. But the good news is you have a director now where before we did not have that. Right. And I do realize we have doctor Pethea and I really am appreciative of that. And I do I also realize that you probably would not be in a position to be able to answer this, but I wanted to ask it anyway in case, someone else might have an answer. Like I said, and I'm sure doctor Pithya is listening to this.
Just wanna make sure that there's a process to make sure we are successful and those that we help are successful. That's it. Do you have any additional come up, language suggestions with respect to that chapter or the, following two chapters on environmental and parks? Not at this time. Okay. Supervisor Poe? I don't believe I have anything since our last work session on environmental or parks. Okay. Supervisor McKiff. I do not have anything, but I do wanna thank staff for adding the totals to the
to the to the parks that you did for me. That's really great. I appreciate it. I've lost track of the pages, but I'm good. So thank you very much. Pfizer Malek. Thank you. I have a few things that were discussed briefly earlier because I think we were sort of scrambling at the end when then we did this chapter last time. So I'm gonna just suggest some topics. And if people are okay with the topic, then I'll provide the wording to staff, and they can work on it and go any further. But, this is under environmental stewardship, page 17. This, an action item under objective two,
continue to fund and integrate low impact development, LID, and green infrastructure into new county facilities and parks and retrofit low income, low impact development into existing county facilities, and then use those as educational information, through interpretive signs. So that's one that I would throw out in objective two. The second one That is in objective three? Storage. Yeah. Page 17. Environmental stewardship, page 17. Adding action 2.5. This is the 2.5 that's in there is about the Soil And Water Conservation District.
And maybe to maybe that could go under the existing 2.5. The, in 2.6, I very much support the wording which is there, but ask staff to consider whether having using the existing information on our GIS to show maps where the biosolids have already been placed because those are decades long impacts. And having that information, which is already public but gathered a little better might be useful.
Also on page 17, action 3.3, this is talking about water quality, adding some wording about implementing a groundwater monitoring program that could utilize voluntary reporting citizen scientists and similar approaches to monitor groundwater levels throughout the county and promote conservation, water conservation, particularly during times of drought. So I'm not sure exactly where that might go, but, and then the last one in this chapter is about under conservation tools 4.2 on page 18,
language something like, and I'll provide this to you, Tanya, for consideration, protect core forests and other important habitats and sites, including those in the biodiversity action plan and prioritize biodiversity areas as mitigation for loss of forest and forest land in the rural area associated with land development, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. So, anyway, those are the concepts I had for the environmental stewardship. Any of that sound appealing or troubling so that I know whether to talk about it some more. I was having trouble seeing how two point I thought you're talking about 2.2
wasn't something that was in 2.3 where it says retrofit all ID and GreenPark infrastructure and existing kind of facilities etcetera. You would suggest something in two point two that I thought two point three had. Alright. Well, maybe it's already been put in then. That must have been what happened there. Okay. Thank you very much for Oh. Clarifying that. I got my pages tangled up. And the groundwater monitoring program that we gave up on in 2008 and 2009 during the recession, I think, will be very, very helpful for us to bring it back because of the uncertainty of what's happening.
And the only way to know is if you have either citizen science well-being wells being read throughout the county, which I think would be be very well received, or, a greater effort to you to gather information from the broad geography, we will be in better shape, having information ahead of time as we get into these drought cycles that come and go. And I don't know if that belongs in 03/2003 or 3.4 or a new number. I would leave that up to somebody else to figure out how to put it in.
But I can certainly get that draft to, to staff. But, you know, I I certainly think that doing what we can to if we're going to reduce impacts on groundwater to do something to understand what those impacts are Getting data is important. Would be helpful. It's like saying, you know, if we're gonna try to do something and we don't know how to measure, then we really don't know what we're doing for sure. But I don't know how best we do that. So if there's a a way to implement some study of groundwater. I think I just remembered where I stole this from,
and that was from the natural heritage committee's treatise that they had sent many weeks ago. And I hadn't seen any of these tow turn up yet, so that's why I cut them out and put them in. Thank you. Chair, if I may, I'd like to pop it over to Michael Barnes because I think he has something to add on this. I'm trying to formulate an objective for you, which I think is seek to reinstitute the groundwater monitoring program. Is that what you'd like for that objective? A groundwater monitoring program. A groundwater monitoring program. Since we don't know if the one that we've had before is the most okay.
It was only one location on the Mormon Meacham River and it may not have been useful. But I have this little thing I can We will add that you have everything. That sounds good. Here somewhere. Okay. And, you had a Last was something around adding to the 4.2 land conservation tools to, As mitigation? I I don't I don't know that I see that that's necessary. It's already included as something we're doing, whether it's doing it because of mitigation or doing it for other purposes. Well, we have a biodiversity action plan.
It's not part of our site plan evaluations for development, which means we're not really implementing it in any way. And so that, I think, is what the NHC was You're you're getting for. There is one way that it could be a little more substantially reflected. But Yeah. Beautiful. And this as I said, these are all the National Heritage Committee's report that was sent to everybody. I'm not even sure when. I thought I heard you say something as a mitigation for forest land that was lost in the RA. I think I heard that's what you said. Loss of forest and forest land in the rural area associated with land development,
infrastructure, utility, transportation and solar energy generation. So if you're going to be having some offsets for those things, then protecting the areas that are the highest biodiversity elements is what the NHC was supporting. Perhaps we broadened that to just be something about mitigation, investing sort of mitigation type of I appreciate what you're trying to say. I'm not quite counting the words, but I think it is I expect it to be done right now. I would love to get some feedback shared.
Oh, I see you actually have a piece of paper. Well, that I cut out of the National Heritage Committee report that they sent to the entire board, and I assume they sent it to you all as well. Sure. Because it seemed to be Yes. As point of clarification, could we just say as mitigation period? Because then Well, yeah. I know I like credit. Everything. I like that. That way, necessarily We don't need to go through what this Okay. Exactly anything. Thank you. Oh, thank you. Now, superintendent Galway. And I'll come back to parks later, if that's what you want. Oh, well, we were doing parks. Parks. Yeah. Okay. The I had mentioned this at previous work sessions as well,
but it did not get in, so I'll just mention it again. The use of gravel roads for accessible low barrier recreation in the rural areas. As, you know, we to find a place to talk about that, access to in partnership with the Shenandoah National Park Right. Something. These are things that I could not find in here when I was looking through. So, anyway, I can just circulate this page to you all, and you can this is, well, page 24, 25 of FERC. That's why I was trying to find these things. Yeah. And I've It's been hard for me to track and report between the new ones and the old ones.
Ms. Malek, I believe that the issue of gravel roads and sort of that recreational component that they support, you'll find that in the transportation section. Right. But there's it's framed in with we're using our gravel roads for vehicle traffic. And so, I mean, the the pedestrian the other uses are teeny weeny, and I think it is it is important perhaps to mention it in the recreation chapter as well because of the preponderance of the users in the rural areas where there are no sidewalks in the long distance to get to other, walking places that people use the roadways
for that. So, I hope you will consider finding another place to link it in here as well. Supervisor Malek, perhaps we could add that under objective p r five on page 24, expand and improve trail networks and blue ways. Perhaps we could put an objective in there. Well, I appreciate that to be considered. That would be very helpful. Okay. And, somewhere, there was a discussion about nature focused recreational experiences. And whether it was in one of the paragraphs somewhere anyway, I think that's important when we're talking about parks and rec and the the,
certainly, that's something that they the parks department is interested in doing, but it hasn't really been, I think mentioned particularly in the comp plan in the past. And that no child left inside is an important aspect of why people, I think, are getting such incredible value from outdoor activities, no matter whether they're in the urban area or the rural area. I do know that the, the park section does reflect heavy input from the parks department. So if that's something that they had as a vision or something they wanted to do, it's most likely in the document.
The phrase nature focused recreation experiences is 4.5 on page 23. I don't know if that's what you're speaking to. I just happened to glance and see the phrase Yep. On the third line. Yes. I see it. Thank you. Yeah. Program activities that the department would run. Yep. Very good. And I will the last thing that I mentioned the last time as well was encouraging landowners slash neighborhoods to partner for community trails as they exist today all over the county. These are nonofficial, but welcoming
neighbors to, you know, walk on on your trails, which certainly happens across many properties in the community and does not require really any work from the county except to suggest that people talk to each other. And I'll stop there. Thank you. Back down to 4.8. Okay. I think we might be able to add a 3.9 on page 22 to incorporate that. Now, I remember seeing if this and I don't know if this is I'm sorry to butt in, but the same thing as what Anne was just speaking to. Jody was saying to add it on three point s three.
Well, I feel I I I feel like I had the same thought about coordinating for public trails over private property. Mhmm. Because I was talk about it the other day. Honing in on the same point. Okay. But then I I didn't write it down because I think I found it somewhere else Oh, okay. Where it said partnering. And I don't know if I saw that in transportation or if if it's in this parks area. Mhmm. But there was a place that spoke to the coordinating working with it said something like working with partners to expand trail act trails and that I mean, it was a general I forget where it goes. Yeah. I mean, there's also 2.5
coordinated with local partners and bid out to increase walking and existing biking biking and existing parks or next to the next to or near development areas. I mean, that I would take those to mean public trails, public parks, and, you know, public responsibility as opposed to sort of a philosophical thing about encouraging private folks to do their part. That's We will take that under advisement and either I should one or find where it is and make sure that it's fine. Thank you. Thank you. Mister Visor Gallo. If it's if it's just parks and the other one Environmental and parks.
Yeah. I I think I'm good on those. I just wanna clarify. When I talked about the acquire versus purchase on Blight Mhmm. You already had that change in your notes. It just hadn't made it into the document. It wasn't No. It wasn't just You could calling that out. It just needs to make the word change. Gotcha. Okay. Nitpix, I apologize, but I'd already mentioned that there needs to be some comparison between the objectives in the front of the chapters and the objectives as they're stated. But now I also have under 4.4 on page ES18.
The third bullet has a final sentence that says develop and install interpretive devices at LID and green infrastructural locations to inform and educate community members and visitors. Are you with me? Third bullet under 4.4 on page ES 18. And that exact same language appears as the fifth bullet, or the fourth bullet. I'm sorry. Yes. And we thought we had taken that doggone thing out. Yeah. I I thought maybe that was something you had meant. I think I've mentioned it before. Somebody had. Yes. And then I looked at four point five and four point nine.
And, 4.5 is increased county outreach to new and existing landowners on habitat protection and options for land management techniques that support native biodiversity and water quality, and then it goes on. But then 4.9 says the exact same thing. We really like that one. That's okay. Fair enough. Sorry. We will strike one of those. How about Okay. Do you prefer 4.5 or 4.9 since 4.5 has more stuff with it? Well, if if it if it works together as a whole, then it should just take it out of four point nine.
We will we will strike four point nine. If it seems like there are two separate things at four point five, then the first one was repeated and can be taken out. You thought those were bad. The next one's even worse. In the Parks and Recreation chapter, there are several places where Greenway's is two words. And then there are many, many places where Greenway's is one word. How big is one? Okay. So like I said, that's and those are in addition to just make sure you compare the, objectives because there are still a lot of places where there are, like, semicolons in one place and commas in the other and things to find and things
not to find and and some words that are just different, between the two. So, with that, I am done with, these two chapters. If it's okay, we'll go on to cultural resources and community facilities and infrastructure. And, this again is close. So, supervisor Lupisto Kirtley. Oh, it's You got it? Okay. Once again, I'm I'm saying this is a request to change language on either of those two types. Yes. It's under, well, 3.4, and I was looking since I'm dealing with several things,
regarding, hooking up of water and sewer in the development area. Which page? What are we talking about? I think it was 17. 3.4 and then 3.3. It must be Which means for facilities. It must It was the one because I keep I'm back I'm one behind everybody. Oh, okay. Sorry. 3.4. Okay. And, anyway, I was just wondering, whether or not I know it's for development areas and and mainly for the, rural, you know, the urban area. But if there are areas that are just posing this question.
If there are areas, where the rural area borders the development area and they wanted to put in private or public water and sewer, Is that something we would ever consider or we're just doing a hard boundary? I'm throwing that out for discussion. I mean, we're looking for suggested language for the comprehensive plan. Well, then I would say and include nearby rural areas or adjacent rural areas. Could you please state what page you're on? It does. It's three point seeing the AMR.
We're back two chapters. E s seventeen three point four, reduce impacts on groundwater water splash from private septic systems by intensifying and seeking connections to public sanitary sewer system for properties in the development area that are on private septic systems. And you're suggesting ad that are in the development area or rural areas? Adjacent rural areas. Adjacent. Where they could be easily connected and maybe even Already. Yep. Paid for. There is already a policy to handle expansion of the jurisdictional area. It comes before the board for consideration.
Right. So you have that already. Okay. For the part of the essay. Okay. That's fine. And the the other one was, 3.3, a question. We're talking about notifying new new people, landowners that come into the, county. Would that be digital or would that be pamphlets? I'm not tell saying what to do. I'm trying to make sure we're we're not using a lot of staff time or money producing pamphlets or something if it can be digital information. I don't think the media was specified in this particular Right.
Item. So I I expect that we would use that, which is most effective. Okay. That that answers my questions. I'm done. Thank you. Okay. Are you do you want to weigh in at this point on cultural resources and community facilities? I'm good. Thank you. Should we come back to you? Possibly. Okay. So I'm gonna jump to supervisor approved. Yeah. I want to begin just by saying that I really like the changes that we've made to the cultural resources section. I know we had some kind of substantial, kind of eleventh hour changes,
suggesting that this wasn't sufficiently expansive of the meaning of culture, and was not embracing contemporary culture. I think changes, especially in objective two that were made to encapsulate that, I'm really pleased with. If I wanted to get difficult, I could say, but the images in the narrative don't reflect that. But I think it's actually fine. And and you've heard me before, I think, state that I I'm mostly looking at the actions and objectives as the tangible things that are directing staff action. And so I I have no issues with I just wanted to call out that
as a thing that was really pleased with how we've, changed that, and I don't actually think I have any, specific language changes, in either chapter. Okay. Supervisor McHugh. Yeah. I was just going through the second chapter. I don't think Excuse me, supervisor. Can you move your mic? I'm just going through the second chapter. I don't think I have, any suggested changes. I think everything, I didn't make any notes, so I think I'm good. Thank you. Supervisor, Malick. Oh, I don't have any changes, and I especially appreciate the recent events that was added. Thank you. And supervisor Galloway.
And this is CR and CF? CR and CF. So CR, I just in reading I'm sorry. Through the notes and then reading through the chapter, I I kind of support what supervisor Pruitt said. It looked like the work you all did on that was was good. So I was I don't have any comments on CR. CF, I'm just calling out in on your notes. It calls out page 19, action 8.1 to be updated to say strive to adopt, and I didn't see that change yet. Yeah. I I Did you already put that out? And then,
it's 8.9, I guess, in the notes. That's 8.1. Oh, it's supposed to be 8.1. No. The sec the next note on the notes section is also eight point one, and I think it's a later one. I just got confused. The notes were not the notes called out the wrong eight point something. Oh, right. It said in the notes that it was 8.1 or 8.9 when it was actually eight plus one that it had strived to, but it wasn't reflected in the document. I think it was just the hey. Do a double check on the notes versus the the document. So what I'm hearing is 8.1
should read, strive to adopt and implement a zero waste, framework for county operations. That's what was in the notes. Okay. I don't think it made it into the draft. It did not. I just One more question. Changed even though it said it was changed. Got it. Thank you. Okay. Then that's on to me. Community facilities. And I told you I wasn't gonna call these out, but this one I'm worried that you're gonna get confused because objective one says provide, in other words, added added access to public facilities instead of just provide public facilities. And then objective two, it says provide public and water and sewer to the development areas.
Whereas in the in the back, the words, x access to were put in the second bullet instead of the first in the first objective. And so maybe it should be both. But, it didn't seem to me that it was put in the right place. And sorry. Just hit two more pages. Page CF sixteen two point one. Thought I brought this up before as well. Under three, it says, and it's talking about use development or barrier boundaries to guide the ACA say, jurisdiction. Consider when the number three is on-site private water septic utilities for our cost prohibitive
or I don't know what there's a missing word or something. Four goes out. Four goes out. Yeah. Four goes out. Yeah. It's just removed. Our cost prohibitive. Yes. We had that last time. Sorry, I know I think I had brought that up before. You did. You did. Remember? Apologies. And in 5.7, am I correct that I don't know if this was reflected in the, is there anything else in the? Okay. I'm just checking here. 5 Point. Yeah. I I I, in 5.7, I I guess, I don't know why, but I thought it said it was gonna have better the second line better accommodate urban street designs as well as the county's rural roads without compromising response capabilities.
Now, am I wrong in that? Yes, urban and rural street road street design. Is that Or something like that. Oh, yeah. It's in the notes. It's in the notes, but it didn't appear in the documents. So the the change wasn't actually made even though it said it was gonna be made. And then he already brought up Strive two. And, otherwise, let's see. There was a suggested change from the planning commission, I think is great, about the, stormwater best management practices. That's it. And on that stormwater best management practices, it was at a 10.4. Right? Right. Okay. And I agree with that change.
Thanks. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. If there's nothing oh, supervisor Lapisto Pertland. I don't wanna, ignore you. I wanna make sure. Thank you. I appreciate that. I I wanted to make sure that under cultural resources, I recently sent in, some photos, especially one really good photograph of the, Saint John community and Life family and community life center. And wanted to make sure that was the old Rosenwald School, one of only seven in Albemarle County, five of which still exist.
But this is, one that is now belongs to the public, and so I wanna make sure that, staff receive those pictures and those get included. That was brought up in our work session. Yes, ma'am. We did receive them, and we just haven't added them to this draft that you have in your possession right now yet. I figured. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Anything further on community facilities? No. Thank you. Then work we're at implementation. And I will suggest we can do implementation and the appendices together if people have
concerns and language should something change. So, we can jump in or or I'll turn to Pruwit, and we'll come back. Okay. Let's turn to Pruwit. Let's turn to Pruwit. Okay. Super. I got Pruwit. Alright. Just gonna say next time I'm first in the order, I think, to so currently has to take my spot. Will will do. Will do. I, I am not give me one second. Yeah. Because I was hoping to have a few extra seconds here. I I continue to have, I think, the and, again, I don't know that I have support on this. I I question the big moves not being ordered and the breadth with which they're
defined. It does not seem to me to be a useful prioritization tool if I were using this. And as a manager of we're not managers of the government. Right? We're not. We're we're legislators. But if I was the manager of this government, I would not see this as a very useful tool, and I see us as trying to give the managers of this government useful tools. I don't see this as being helpful in prioritization. I think it should be a prioritized list, or there should be far, far, far, far, far fewer big moves. But we've litigated that out,
and I know how I stand with my peers on that. So I have no further comments. I did not think to review the agenda or the appendices. So my apologies on that. The only one I remember bringing up previously is that I wasn't sure if it made sense to, grab the Scottsville comprehensive plan, as fixed in time, to put it in there as a static object because it, it is reviewed on a different periodicity than us. Find that language. I I don't have it up right now, so I don't even know how it's in there. Because I, again, was not thinking about reviewing the,
the appendices on this. I mean, broadly speaking, the logic of the appendices are as it's a living document. So as things get adopted, it would be move in and out of the reference section there. Most of them are things that the Board takes action on. This one's a bit different since they take their own action on there. And has this been in before? I don't remember it ever being in before. Has the comp plan has the Scottsdale comp plan been in our county plan recognized in our county plan for not? I thought it had. In 2015? I doubt it.
David Benesch is here. Mister we we we call the historian then, please. Yeah. Knox 2. Okay. Here we go. Mister Benesch. Okay. According to our CDD historian, mister David Benesch, it has been acknowledged but not attached. K. Okay. Yeah. I I like the idea of it being linked somehow. I guess maybe what I'm running up against is the way we even present the appendices. Right? So many living documents live in some kind of, registry box, something on a website where they can be easily updated. If we're talking about,
like, a diversity action plan, the housing album model, discussable comprehensive plan, those are updated on different periodices, but this is a this is a static PDF. Right? And that is the way in which we access it. We do have links built into this document so that you will be able to access things dynamically from this document. Mhmm. The only the only gotcha would be is if the URL changed on the Scottsville plan. Right. Which I would assume it would. Right? Because the Scottsville comprehensive plan is itself a PDF. So when they update a new one,
it will be in a different location. That I'm not trying to be tedious. I Well, I mean, it's just an interesting point, and we we don't have to belabor it too much. But the the idea of being able to have hyperlinks in the document, it was something that we were really working towards, you know. So if you're reading through the policy and it referenced the biodiversity plan, you can go back there and see that larger bit of information and read as much as you wanted. We would try and keep the Scottsville particular plan current. Everything else really gets moved to the county body. You pointed out a little loophole.
I'd like to push back a little to update those, change those, then I presume they become part of our comprehensive plan because we did that. Yes. The town of Scottsville may do whatever they want, and I don't want to be bound by what they might do in the future if we're incorporating it. We're incorporating the one that's finally adopted. Doctor. Van. And, Mr. Chair, the separation of adopted documents and reference documents supports your interpretation that adopted documents are what this board adopts, and those become a living part of the comprehensive plan. The reference documents are simply materials that the drafters of this plan used in the
preparation. Thank you. And so so and I might add the town of Scottsville comprehensive plan specifically references the 2018 comprehensive plan. Right. So that would not be updated. That's just a And I remember our discussion about the big moves. So run through again. I'm trying to read things just a little bit, Mike. So talk to me a little bit more about your big moves. So the concern I expressed was that the big moves, I think, as described, can be interpreted quite liberally, and it would be hard to identify any given action in the comprehensive plan that
I would not be able to you know, thinking like a lawyer, I feel like there's almost every action in this comprehensive plan I could probably figure out how to get in one of these big moves. I don't see that as giving direction to staff if we're saying the big moves are the actions that should be prioritized. And it also my concern is it as much as staff not having that direction, it also creates an accountability problem with the public because the public should be able to demand, you have said x y zed is a priority, and it is not being executed before a b c.
And I don't think the public can make that argument either because we are not giving, I think, a clear enough walkway about what we're prioritizing. So I I see the the big moves as I don't know that it accomplishes anything. I think if we did not have a priorities set there, I think we'd be in about the same place. Interesting. Do you wanna make I see there's being value in priorities. And and my thought not and this really doesn't get exactly what you're talking about at all, but I really don't like numbers because numbers lead people to think,
oh, that's prioritized one and two. I would remove the numbers and put that even if you just put bullets or something, have you but that doesn't really get at what you're talking about. But my sense is I just don't like the numbers one through seven. But talk to me a little bit about what Mike just said or maybe look over to I can, speak to that. I think God bless you. What we were hoping with the big moves is that it would provide an interim step between all of these actions that we've got listed in this comprehensive plan and
the next steps we're going to take as your implementers of this plan. So what is gonna happen after this plan is adopted is that we're going to be, coalescing different actions together that work to, augment or support or further some of these big moves. And then with what we intend to do in conjunction with your strategic plan conversation that you will have with, Ms. Shiflett is that we intend to bring forward work that we're going to work on,
on an annual basis on your behalf that line up the actions that we've got that spread throughout this document with these big moves. Now you can tell us, next year, we want you to focus on climate change, for example, and that happens to be action number six or big move number six. These weren't intended to be a prioritization. It's just for ease of reference so that we can say number six rather than countdown bullet six kind of thing. But, we certainly can put bullets back in here if you would prefer. But I I think that is that was our intention,
supervisor Pruitt. I don't know if that helps or doesn't or clarifies anything that makes it worse. It answers my question. I I don't know that we need to belabor and relitigate those. I think we addressed it pretty well previously. Okay. I I think it's the place where we focused our public engagement process and because I have the concern about the public accountability, problem that I see this creating, it seems to me that this should be the place where that prioritization should happen rather than the strategic plan or other yearly plans, which frankly have a lesser degree of public engagement.
But, again, I recognize where I sit on the board, and, also, this would be, at this stage, a substantial change that I don't have a specific roadmap for. I was just preserving my descent Yeah. On this. And and I appreciate what you your explanation. That helped me a lot. I still don't like the numbers, but I get what you're saying about referencing number seven. But if you say number seven, that's not gonna mean anything to anybody unless you say so I'm just not you know? I think numbers lead people into any whatever. May may we take that under advisement and see if we can come up with
a different thing? I I don't know what that would be right now, but But that's TV. Thank you. And that's all I have. Supervisor Malek. Thank you. And, in that same vein, I ask you to consider whether it would be more helpful to have the big move discussion up at the front because it is that umbrella. And I'm looking at I mean, I'm seeing here part three, planet rotation spaces being which right before that, then it flows neatly into the DALU, etcetera,
etcetera, etcetera, as opposed to an after run, which nobody will read unless it's it's so like they say, put your punchline at the beginning. That's what I would suggest. Thank you. I don't I have nothing on the implementation, and I did not really scrutinize the appendices. I just did I ran out of time on that one. I have nothing for well, I actually kind of like having an implementation chapter at the end. Now whether the big moves got moved up or not, they're intended to help understand how we're going to organize Mhmm.
What we do going forward. And I like the chapter. And Thank you. Where I'm at. Thank you. Did you wanna go to supervisor supervisor will be super clear. I skipped you after all that. Sorry. Okay. I realize I'm hard to see. Okay. So, I do have it under implementation page 16. Now I've gotta go back to my phone. It has the number of affordable housing units that are preserved and new. There's obvious there would probably obviously be a list. But can we list ownership versus renting if,
my, fellow colleagues agree just to have an idea of how we're doing in that area, maybe who's doing what? I'd support that. So basically taking number of affordable housing units and where it says preserved and new, break it down into both rental and owner. Yes. Right. Okay. Yes. We got the numbers on both. Yeah. Yes. Which is just more information and data if that's okay with staff if that's something that staff can do easily. I'll have to check into that. I don't know, but I've got the note.
Okay. It's just an example of a metric to be monitored, and it doesn't it could go without saying that you could do the monitoring whether it's listed here or not. But I certainly have no problem with learning which ones are how much how many are rental, how many are far. Yes. Right. Noted. Thank you. And the only other thing I was going to bring up is under housing, which goes back a couple, sections. Ask asking staff, and please refresh my memory. Do we have something regarding the housing height in the development area?
Limiting the, height of Housing section whether we In the housing section. You know, whether we talked about height, if you'd like to go to time. In six by But we have in our development area land use separately, sections on how many stories? Yeah. Yes. Yep. I think it was up to four. I'm not sure. But can that would be I mean, we've talked about going, higher and denser. And so that would be something that would be beneficial for future. I mean, maybe I know it's expensive. Anytime you go over six stories, that that's, they have to use a different structure and everything.
But that may be something that, for the future, we don't wanna limit ourselves by not being able to go higher. We haven't limited ourselves. We've said, generally, one to three stories. So, generally, one to three stories, generally I know. We're not saying limited to. Correct. And that is something that We'll have further discussions on when we bring zoning modernization forward to you as well. But, certainly, in this document, you do have all that generally language on every single, residential land use. Correct. But I was just wondering so under zoning,
then that's something that we could also, discuss and Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Are there additional comments? Are there additional questions that you have from us for us? Is there sufficient guidance to be able to get to the next step? Staff wants to start off. Working on right now. But as I possibly assume Are there any items that are particularly concerning that we might have come to a nuclear resolution?
I I do believe we have what we need. So we will go back and go through our notes. I see county executive Richardson leaning in. Go ahead. Finish up. I'm done. Let let's check-in with Anne Wall, and and I'd like to see I'd like for Anne to be asked that question. Anne, if you if you take a second and come up because you've worked really hard with this staff. And, I think what, chair Andrews and the board really wants to know at this point is, do we see anything that troubles us or we see any gaps, anything at all that you've thought of that you would want to guide the board
on? Right. Thank you, mister Richardson. Anwalt, deputy county executive. I would like to just take a moment of personal privilege and really take, and really thank the CDD team for their extraordinary work over the last, as Ben Holt reminded us last night at the public hearing for PUC, the last four years. Ben gives me the four. The last four years. What an extraordinary effort from the board from the staff. So I would like to thank them. I think that, tomorrow morning, what we will do is we will go through the list of changes from the board, and, hopefully,
we'll be able to read the consensus from the board about the changes. We did hear periodically what it we would hear change change, but sometimes we might we might not hear that. And we're we're we will be very attentively go through those, the the notes and make sure that we are achieving consensus from the board. And I so I'm gonna trust staff and Tanya and Jody that we have all those notes. What we will do, what the staff will do is they will process, they will make these changes to this document,
and we will get this document back out just as soon as we can, because we really want to be in a position for the for this board to hold this public hearing on October 15. So I would say, we hope we do. We'll know more in the next day as we go back and relisten to all the minutes of the the the audio of the meeting to make sure we're clear. Does that answer your question, mister Richardson? Ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. Since we have to do it every five years, so we have to start again next year on the next one?
Okay. Fun. I won't. But I'll be thinking back to it. I will look to the county executive. Do you have anything? Nothing else. You guys okay? Yeah. We're good. We're good. We do have from the board committee reports in that is not listed on the agenda. Supervisor Lapisto Curley, do you have anything you'd like to test further tonight? Am I on? No. Thank you very much. Nothing. Okay. Supervisor Pruitt. I don't believe I have anything. Thank you. Supervisor McHugh? I don't have anything. Thank you. Supervisor Malek? None for me. Thanks. Supervisor Galloway? I will forward there is a draft,
that's going to the TJPDC commission Thursday night of all six jurisdictions to speak to funding the transportation funding. I look I look to see that pass at the TJPDC coming from all six, and then I believe we're going to work with staff of, the Stanton, Augusta, Waynesboro PDC to try to get them. They seem they've had some interest, I think, and also maybe doing a similar type of letter, so there's a little momentum going on that. But I'll share that draft with you all in email. And then, I did we had a great presentation at the Central Virginia Regional Housing Partnership this
last time from Virginia Housing on a workforce development housing grant that's out there. I shared some of that information with the county executive, but, I don't know if that's recorded or not, but I would suspect you'll see some information coming forward on that. I'm happy to discuss it if anybody has further interest in it. Diantha was there as well, so she she heard that. It's part of the partnership. Thank you. Thank you. I have nothing further. So if there's nothing further from anyone else, I will say the meeting is now adjourned to 10/15/2025, 1PM, Aaron Lane Auditorium.
Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you for staying. Thank you.