Board of Supervisors Special Meeting   9/23/2015

We had some interesting ideas come up and we wanted some clarifications from staff so we have scheduled this special meeting to finish the public hearing tonight.

Now that we are all together I will call us to order and ask for the continued discussion and I believe you are coming back with information for us.

I'm gonna turn it over to Faith because she wanted to touch on one other aspect that she looked at just for information and I think she wants to share that with you.

Faith, if you'd identify yourself.

and the parcels there in this particular option do reflect those that have been part of the discussion between the brewery prospect and the landowners.

That and I think at this point we'll turn it over to you for any questions.

I just want to clarify you have been in touch with the landowner who's not the applicant to make sure that what we're discussing tonight is acceptable to them.

Valerie Long.

All right, board, what is our consideration of this matter?

Well I guess what I'm assuming that we're going to approve one of these and I don't know if we need to discuss which one we want before we talk about the text or when we make the motion when somebody makes the motion do they need to make it with the text I guess with my question very question process issue

I think Wayne is prepared to do that based on some suggestions that have been made earlier to him.

So we can either decide how we're going to look at this and to see if we have a majority opinion on how to vote on something to your question and then do text before we make the resolution or which do you prefer to do first?

Text first?

Let's do text.

So there would be no language change necessary for that area.

Okay, that sounds reasonable.

And I'll let Faith speak to that.

But again, we wouldn't want to essentially preclude something that may be complementary to these as well.

And then the particular use types would still be listed.

So how does that work together?

It would be in addition to, so you're still focused on exactly that and the wording of the amendment.

Does that work for you?

Yes, it's okay with me, it depends on what, I would like to hear what Ann has to say.

I may be the only one, but I think it's useful.

We need to turn to Larry about the advertisements.

Larry and I actually talked a little about this.

and the advertisement was limited to that so technically it's not before you.

So this will be something we will add to our priority project to tighten up all these other things and put that in with that.

At the time that you do the industrial inventory this would be included.

So there is the opportunity for industrial in that area even without the addition of this land.

Good clarification.

Oh, okay.

We're ready to move on to the consideration of the, all right.

So you really don't need that language under the assumption that any subsequent rezoning is going to follow what the land use recommendation is, and that doesn't allow big box retail.

No offense to Walmart.

Now if that rezoning might come in, you just may need to remember that.

If we put that in there, would it make it more clear?

No, we know because that's the way we would interpret as staff.

You feel comfortable.

Now I will say that within the regional area, regional mixed use area, that is possible because of that designation, but that is not what's before you.

Okay?

and we didn't identify anything in particular that could be special attention but we'll certainly, Mark's here, he can help answer questions if you think there's something that beyond the WPO might be important.

Liz, did you have something specific in mind?

Since it's already a degraded stream.

Yeah, it's concerning.

Integrated 1,000 pages of other stuff.

with the TMDL, we could, that would be fine, we could do something like that and that would give us guidance when this goes to a rezoning at some future date on what we should be looking for as far as stormwater, addressing stormwater impacts.

that's where the changes are gonna be possible is before you do something you need to figure out how to do it correctly so it does not have an impact.

So if we would say to avoid negative, could we say avoid increasing impacts?

I mean that gives us a little, that gives you, you said that gives you a little bit more clarity or.

Or just avoid impacts consistent with the approved TMDL for Morris Creek?

I have to have something to know what

what's adequate, I mean, just saying do something really good, it's hard for us to know.

You might wanna repeat it, because I think you.

Sure, one more repeat.

to avoid impacts inconsistent with the goals of the TMDL for Mores Creek.

Okay.

And if you keep throwing these hurdles out there that somebody has to overcome, I think we're defeating what the real purpose is here.

The TMDLs are, and so this has, we're just making it clear that these responsibilities are current.

Our current ordinance addresses those issues consistent with state regulations and law.

Is this redundant?

No, this is going beyond that, saying that you want to hold this property to a higher standard than you're holding other property right now.

Why is that the case when it has a TMDL assignment?

What you're effectively doing is you're jumping ahead of DEQ in the process by adding this language.

And it also leaves it for interpretation by staff, right?

We're not just having some, doing as good as you can or something like that.

So whatever wording we need to make sure you have the ability to do that is what I'm asking.

Are you anticipating a need to hold this property to a higher standard than other development that's happening?

You mean higher than the water protection ordinance?

if the water protection ordinance in treating this property the same as other areas in the county is fine, we're there right now.

I mean, if our water protection ordinance is gonna cover, from your point of view, sufficiently, then I don't think we need this extra layer unless there's some other situation that I'm not aware of where we put an additional layer of water protection.

And if so, I'm trying to provide you some guidance on what language might address those additional impacts.

If you think our Water Protection Ordinance provides that, then no, I don't think there's any need for it.

I think it provides a level of protection that's consistent with state law and regulations, and we can enforce that right now today.

When we say special attention, that's up to y'all to interpret what a special attention would come back to us.

Yeah, I would really struggle with what that meant.

Yeah, I don't think we do either.

Thanks, Mark.

Thank you, Mark.

All right, do we have any more points, Liz?

So I think that language implies that for access purposes there may be some disturbance of preserved slopes, but otherwise the suggested additional language from Ms. Palmer would be further guidance for how the steep slopes overlay gets applied in this area.

So this one is okay with you guys?

I think it's really up to the board's decision as to whether or not they feel they want to further stress preservation of slopes or there would potentially be the judgment call of what's managed versus what's preserved.

Is that a process that would happen anyways?

Our recommendations will be based on in part the plan along with six other criteria I believe it is.

So am I hearing that this would be redundant?

I don't... priority and ranking and whether this becomes priority six and therefore there's a different outcome or if you're establishing that the steep slopes are important and should be avoided and not just taken as one of the six things to play with in the design.

it depends on whether you want to retain a little bit more flexibility and how those slopes get applied under the steep slopes overlay when that comes to you and you have the judgment call then as to how you apply them with or without this language I think in effect you're deciding that now instead of deciding it in the process that's in place already to assess it with some information and so you could certainly

make a preference to that right now with language but otherwise there is a process to evaluate this and see if there's conditions under which managed rather than preserved.

And Wayne some of this would still be under interpretation of whoever I guess analyzes the land like we saw with the Franklin Street

We already had the zoning on the land.

So this would still leave that door open that that landowner or prospective developer would come in and challenge what we consider to be managed slopes or preserved slopes.

I think we'd work with the property owner actually even before the steep slopes overlay is adopted to try to avoid what happened with Franklin.

We have another opportunity to work on steep slopes in the regular processes.

How much is too much?

And I'm comfortable with what I hear that will come back and we'll have the opportunity at the time when we really know what's gonna happen or what the suggestion is.

I like this yellow edition, as I said.

And I haven't, just the Franklin Street, I have spent a lot of time looking at what managed and preserved, and I haven't had a chance really.

It's hard to hear you, Jane.

I haven't had a chance really to get down in the, because I didn't think I needed to look at critical slopes at this juncture.

That's taken away our option to deal with it when we have a specific application before us.

I think that's where we are.

All right, do we have more bullets?

It's further defining what's expected.

I think it is a source of comfort for the community that it's in there.

That's one of the reasons why I put it in there.

It obviously is intended to cover a big concern that I think everyone shares with the interchange, which is going to need its attention with or without this CPA.

No?

We've put conditions on rezonings before about, I mean, branch lands comes to mind how we said construction traffic, traffic in general can only come through one area and not another.

Those are the two things I'm hearing you would like adjusted in the word.

How do we want to start this discussion?

Because I thought 48 was that whole 82-acre piece.

It's all of this.

Okay, that's what I thought.

The red, solid red is the edge of the development area right here.

Right here, yes.

until it gets rezoned it stays R1 and it also has jurisdictional area designation.

because elsewhere in your, the comp plan text, it talks about how you're supposed to stay away from these kinds of areas and use the natural topography, et cetera, so I wondered why that was being included.

or has to keep because of preserved slope status under zoning or it may be slivers that are managed slope that can be disturbed and there's criteria for how you do that.

some engineers hired by the owners or do we have our own independent information about that at some point?

When we did the steep slopes overlay we started from the aerials and the topo associated with aerials but for particular properties it may be much more ground level kind of analysis that's done.

Which generally would come at the rezoning stage rather than now.

I'm not a land developer, but I can imagine every square foot matters, especially when we talk about buffers and setbacks.

keeps that opportunity available because it goes into the development area.

I'm fine with this, I just don't want to, if there's some way, if a motion is made to kind of make that a little bit of a gray line until some affirmative decisions made about whether.

This line, it's pretty hard to go and definitively draw that on the ground, so to speak.

So there's a little bit of room.

That's a little different because that's truly a rural area that they have said they would want to have.

But Mr. Sheffield, I think your point is valid that you can see from where that green swath does lie on that parcel that the actual development opportunity on that particular parcel will be fairly limited, especially if those are deemed to be critical slopes in the piece that is still brought into the development area.

because if you took option Q, you wouldn't have to go by the parcel lines and what you designated as the growth area, would you?

This line down here is parcel based on the very end, but these lines were really based on what areas become predominantly resource areas to the west side of the property.

but my understanding is that the most developable land would be available with this particular option and Faith and what she sent out to us indicated that that would make just 82 which is not the 227 we originally proposed available and could and I've talked to some engineers about this who have looked at that site think that this would be the most developable area.

But it does provide for all of the acreage that originally went to public hearing that was projected to be usable for industrial purposes.

I've had similar discussions with engineers that the parcels that really would be the least costly to develop and would have the least impact and allow for the greatest contiguous portions there are the ones closest to 29, which are reflected in this option.

I'm just curious about what others think about this particular option.

eventually expanding their infrastructure at a cost that we don't even know yet?

Typically as development occurs it's the developer that is paying for the extension of the utilities.

Typically, but if we try to attract a prospect like we are now, one of the options on the table is to pay for infrastructure for them.

So that could happen again in the future.

So my concern is that we're setting ourselves up for potentially having to pay or take on responsibility for infrastructure that I didn't initially consider.

It might be a question of how much bang for your buck do you get in making that investment?

Certainly you would, if the county were at some point to make an investment and assist with the infrastructure there, we would be able to maximize the value of that investment, of the county's investment in the infrastructure by extending it to more parcels and to more area.

So to be cynical, if that's the case, then why do we have a water and sewer jurisdiction?

I don't know the answer to that question.

That's why you have it.

Except for in this case where there's a swath of it that goes into the rural area.

and it's never gotten water and sewer so why it even was I think maybe at one time it was a larger development area boundary and so it was more areas designated.

Of course you did.

I'm sorry.

and the board was cutting him out of his investment and he wanted to extend the property to the development area and the board refused and my thought is that the addition of the jurisdictional area at that point was sort of a compromise to that situation.

For folks that didn't...

So even back then there was the assumption one day that this would come into the development area.

So thanks Liz.

And it was certainly an attempt to prevent sprawl and we've done a relatively good job in comparison to a lot of our peer communities.

Absolutely.

So there's a big reason for it.

And then we will have more ability to make a better decision on those other parcels.

I could make a motion if we were ready.

Are we ready?

Are we ready to hear a first question?

This is attachment I.

If we're ready.

Ken wanted to know where we were.

and its corresponding attachments.

And I guess I would need to add- Those would be the attachments, yeah, that as amended.

As amended, yes, in the text.

And this came from Larry.

Yes, Larry said I needed to read that statement first.

That's where we are with that, with B.

And then is there another something to follow that would have more details about what we're talking about or should I raise questions now to be added to this?

I think you take this action first and then there can be a discussion as to what happens next.

Was that in the form of a motion?

That is in the form of a motion.

Because I really would like to discuss it.

Discussion.

That just really concerns me.

I think we need to move directly after that into doing the study that has been suggested so that we're not doing piecemeal changes and we have some basis to

We have to have somebody come forward for a zoning before that happens.

And if we're not moving quickly enough.

Yeah, but we should have been prepared for this 10 years ago.

I'm looking at Faith, because it's gonna fall under her shoulders to do this assessment.

We have nothing of this nature that falls into the interchange and the major roadway.

If that came before us, I think that would provide us the foundation to be able to make these decisions a little bit more confidently.

Faith is already doing the other one and I think she'll bring that forward pretty quickly.

Thank you so much.

And did you want to speak?

it's a little different than what I understood, Diantha, saying that prioritization of the evaluation of the properties in the growth area is what I think is very important to do right now, not all 470,000 acres, because to go there is different altogether from this, so I just wanted to make sure that I was on the same page as others.

Liz, did you wanna?

I'm certainly not against having the Planning Commission take a more comprehensive look at our exits and our boundaries, but I do want very, I think it's very important to look at what we've got.

Yes, absolutely.

And this is a baby step, I recognize that, but it's the baby step that I think our community is much more supportive of than doing something that's much larger that also puts us in other problems.

I really do, because you're better people than I was, actually.

So that's exactly the frustration I was suggesting is you know five years to get here and we're responding rather than having We should have dealt with these questions a long time ago we should have dealt with these questions when we did the comp plan amendment I'm really and I'll say this with two members and my member

And as Jane says, we won't be around to be part of that.

I think part of dealing with it today is making sure that we're loud and clear that, clear the decks, get this done.

So that's a different thing altogether.

Am I, R1?

But I think those two key facts are what this board is basing its decision on if you adopt option 1B.

I think at four o'clock it was like around 333 people that had signed petitions.

We heard that over and over and over again, and I think that's an important distinction.

I mean, a lot of these people I see all the time and I have full respect for and I think that's where it falls on us to figure out how to make this balance because people say they want this but they don't want to hear but it falls on us to figure out how to actually make it all work.

It's what's made this pretty complex and challenging.

So do we need more discussion?

So even though I'm going to vote for it, because the votes are here and I want it to be a unanimous vote, I'm opposed to what you're doing.

So we do need to get busy and so that's why as soon as this is over I want to talk about how we do that.

That's what I'm very hopeful for, that this will encourage those landowners to work together and to create something as an employment campus that's really special right there.

We've had discussion.

Ms. McKeel?

Yes.

Ms. Dittmar?

Thank you, Board.

and I don't have an answer for you Ken about why since 2010 we haven't been able to put something like this together and if I could real quick from staff I mean what time frame would you think you would need to kind of do an assessment of I mean we have the target industry study we know what target industries we would like to accommodate or we could accommodate how much time do we need to kind of assess what lands out there whether it's in the development area or not

only in the growth areas.

She can answer how quickly the first part can go.

Okay.

and so yes, I want to hear about the process, but I'm also interested in how we can do this in a timely way and not have some of you five years later saying, well, we tried to do it in 2015, but here we are again.

I mean to get to what Brad's saying.

Let Faith answer the internal development area issue first and then we can talk about them.

to evaluate in making your decisions going forward, even about rezonings of properties that may indeed be in the development area today.

But again, I don't necessarily need that as part of this study, but quickly after something you show us, the next question is go, okay, what do we need to do about redevelopment?

I think that when you look at Brownfield redevelopment, we have some industrial that's not appropriate anymore, but could be, and again, you were talking about incentives for that, so I think it's a full-blown, this is all you have right now that if someone comes knocking, you could be ready, and this is what we need to do to have more, and this is what we could do over the next,

So you're looking for some kind of a general timeline on the initial inventory assessment with the idea that it's going to have to be much more to it or

So as part of phase one, you will do both those items, those properties which are zoned right now and also those which are designated light industrial but not zoned.

Correct.

And then a third part is with willing landowners.

Yes.

So that's what I would see as phase one.

And I'm willing to, if we're ready, I can make a motion about this if we'd like to vote on it.

Have you, sure, but have you clarified that it's not just voluntary?

If faith needs more direction, I don't

We have some hybrid kinds of designations and we have allowances within our zoning now that present possibilities for industrial use of certain types on properties that are also a pretty important part of the analysis of what's there.

That is ripe land for a light industrial office.

We've already had people approach us about that.

That area is fairly adequate right now, so looking at rezoning or proactively rezoning and those kind of things.

and I'm certainly happy to bring those forward to you as well, but I think it will be important for the board to begin the discussion about what that means and how that works with our current process and requirements of the applicant paying for the infrastructure improvements associated with those rezonings.

But those are part of what we have to bring to you and talk about.

So you really just want to say we want to prioritize this work.

And I'd like to try to make that into motion just so we are setting clear expectations.

Please do, let's hear what you have.

Does that sound?

about not do any more piecemeal rather than hold off on any piecemeal.

Development area expansions until that comprehensive statement.

Until that development area review is completed.

Larry, do you have anything to say about that?

Qualitative, quantitative, and willing are the three terms.

Requesting staff and the Planning Commission to initiate a work plan.

that's identified in the 2015 comprehensive plan to begin a comprehensive study of supply, need, and location of available and needed industrial land for the county.

I think a clarification of the motion and Larry if you want to do that would help with that because I think it

doesn't do what you're concerned with.

When you say comprehensive plan and comprehensively and planning commission, you're talking about the whole county, so I don't want to do that right now.

in a piecemeal fashion but in a comprehensive fashion so you can address the impacts.

So is there any desire to add just a little bit of like this is one of our highest?

I don't want to put a specific timeline, well, I'd love to put a specific timeline, but I don't want to put undue pressure on Faith's office that then displace other work that she's trying to do.

Not set a timeline, obviously we have to respond to emergencies and urgencies.

I would, I guess, move to amend my own motion that we would make it a priority for the board.

You may want to have input from staff as to what that realistic process would be.

So any desire for just a word or two about our value on the importance of this?

Is that okay with you?

Second to that amendment.

Any more discussion?

Mr. Boyd?

Abstain.

Thank you.

A little more space for our local folks to grow into and that may happen a lot sooner than someone coming from the outside.

My take on that is it hasn't been done before because we haven't had staff and now we do.

That process started you know last year and we had some struggles with the budget approval and then we went through the hiring process and she's been here almost five months so it may be the plan which should be more aggressive and we'll have to think about as we go forward as to what the next actions will be beyond this that will move this thing forward more aggressively if that's what we want to do.

To get back to Larry's suggestion, when might we see a recommendation for a process for your study?

How about Friday?

If it takes more, it would absolutely be no later than the first meeting in November, and she's been working on laying that out.

Land and buildings are only one of those components.

I think that'll inform the whole process a lot more and that's what might take us to November, the first meeting in November rather than quickly in the next two weeks putting something together.

Anything else that anyone would like to discuss tonight unrelated to this?

So if you want to go and see one of the most spectacular natural events for this many years, then go to the Shenandoah Park website and get all the details.

I'll be quick.

We will adjourn.

Actually, we probably should move to adjourn to Friday, September 25th, to Morven Farms at 830 for our board retreat.

See you all Friday morning.

Thank you very much.