2005-09-14A
September 14, 2005 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 14, 2005, at 4:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from September 7, 2005.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 4:15 p.m.), Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G.
Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg, David Benish, Chief of Planning, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Debi
Moyers.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: Mr. William Edgerton (arrived at 4:03 p.m.), Mr. Rodney S.
Thomas, Mr. Calvin Morris, Ms. Jo Higgins; and Ms. Marcia Joseph.
ABSENT: Mr. William Craddock and Mr. William D. Rieley.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 4:02 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker,
and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission, Ms. Joseph.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Joint Work Session with Planning Commission:
a. Rural Area (RA) Comprehensive Plan Implementation.
Mr. Benish summarized the executive summary provided to Board members. On March 2, 2005,
the Board established implementation priorities for the Rural Areas (RA) section of the Comprehensive
Plan. The phasing zoning text amendment (ZTA) was to be done first (to be sent to the Planning
Commission for review by April 2006), followed by a ZTA to mandate the clustering of all new lots in the
RA (ZTA work to begin after completion of the phasing amendments-April 2006-and sent to the Planning
Commission for review by April 2007). The timing for undertaking and completing these text amendments
was based on available staff resources, existing and anticipated workload, and assumed that the normal
public input for ordinance amendment procedures would be followed. The Board has since expressed a
desire to accelerate the phasing and clustering zoning text amendments.
On July 6, 2005, the Board reviewed alternatives for advancing the Rural Areas implementation of
the Comprehensive Plan. At this meeting, the Board considered three proposals to expedite the RA
implementation zoning text amendment process: 1) contract with a consultant to work on specific projects;
2) contract for temporary staff; or 3) hire additional full-time staff. The assumption in those proposals was
that staff would continue to work on the phasing provisions, while additional assistance/support would allow
the clustering ZTA to begin sooner. However, staff suggested that, before any decision was made on hiring
additional support, staff would provide the Board information on the scope of each text amendment. Staff
suggested that more information on the key issues in each amendment and on the key public input
procedures would provide a better idea of the time needed to bring a draft ordinance forward to the
Planning Commission for review.
th
On July 6, the Board directed staff to schedule a joint meeting with the Planning Commission in
September, in order for the Board and Commission to provide direction to staff. The intent of this direction
is to assist staff in determining how best to expedite the review of these implementation priorities.
Staff has broken down the discussion into five major areas, which will help the Board provide
direction to staff in undertaking these ZTAs. These areas are: A) technical issues/focus points regarding
each ZTA (information); B) reconfirmation of implementation priorities (Board direction); C) implications of
undertaking the phasing and clustering separately (Board direction); D) the desired public input process
(Board direction); and E) consultant or contract assistance with work (Board direction).
A. Technical Issues/Focus Points Regarding Each ZTA:
Staff has researched phasing and clustering provisions of other localities. Many of the potential
provisions for phasing and clustering in Albemarle County attached to this report have origins in other
localities (Attachments A, B, and C). However, Albemarle is embarking on new territory by "mandating"
clustering and combining it with phasing. To the best of staff's knowledge, mixing these two implementation
strategies together has not been done by any other county in Virginia. This combining of phasing and
mandated clustering, together with the way density was allocated in 1980 (5 development rights and 21-
acre divisions of the residue, rather than simple minimum-lot-size zoning) presents challenges unique to
Albemarle.
The key provisions and components of both ZTAs contained in the attachments are intended to be
for information only, at this time, to provide the Board with a sense for the complexity of issues that will need
to be addressed in the ZTA review.
However, in an effort to expedite the amendment process, the Board may wish to 1) give guidance
to staff and the Commission regarding the amendments, as they have been presented here; and/or 2)
forward the text amendment information (Attachments A, B and C) to the Planning Commission without
delay, for the Commission to give staff direction and also for the Commission to be able to determine the
appropriate number and the appropriate type of public meetings. It should be cautioned that the
September 14, 2005 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2)
information concerning the clustering text amendment (Attachment C) is the result of initial discussions and
research and should not be considered complete. This guidance/direction would be beneficial to staff in
evaluating the review process and schedule, particularly if the Board has significant concerns with some
aspect or direction of the ordinance outline to date. If the Board determines that additional work sessions
need to be held for the Board to further the review of the phasing and clustering information, additional time
should be allocated to the schedule.
Any Board comment is welcome at this time. In lieu of Board comment at this work session,
Staff's opinion is that forwarding the phasing and clustering text amendment outline/information
that has been developed to date to the Planning Commission now would provide an opportunity for
the Commission to give initial guidance on finalizing a draft ordinance for Commission and public
review.
B. Reconfirmation of Implementation Priorities:
When the RA section of the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in March of this year, the Board
determined that phasing of development and rural preservation development (clustering), in that order,
would be the primary priority implementation tasks. The Board's intention for placing the phasing as the top
priority was its desire to try to control the rate of subdivision taking place in the Rural Areas. The phasing
text amendment was perceived to be comparatively simple and quick to complete, while the clustering
amendment was considered to be more complex and more time consuming to draft (in part, because by
State law it must be an administrative review process and, thereby, should include the design standards for
reviewing clusters). If the clustering amendment was developed first, additional time would pass before the
County would be able to implement measures (phasing) which would try to address the rate of subdivision
occurring in the Rural Areas.
Staff has assumed that the rate of subdivision in the Rural Areas (addressed by phasing)
remains the Board's top issue to address in the Rural Areas, and the form of subdivision (addressed
by clustering) to be addressed second. The following section discusses both advantages and
disadvantages of separate reviews.
C. Implications of Undertaking Phasing ZTA and Clustering ZTA Separately:
As discussed in the previous section, the phasing ZTA was considered the highest priority and
phasing has been scheduled to be completed first. Addressing phasing first also includes the following
advantages:
?
potentially slowing the rate of subdivision through phasing would provide time to carry out
other RA Comprehensive Plan strategies, such as agricultural support initiatives and
easement purchases, which would also serve to slow subdivisions;
?
addressing each of these text amendments separately would provide an opportunity for a
more focused public input on each text amendment (phasing first, then clustering).
Continuing the separate review of phasing and clustering should also include consideration of the
following potential disadvantages:
?
would allow the continuation of large-lot subdivisions that may not protect natural, historic,
and scenic resources and would result in further reduction of agricultural and forestal land;
?
may require later adjustments to the phasing regulations, in order for the two ordinances to
be in concert;
?
would not provide an opportunity to understand how the two amendments will work
together when the phasing ordinance is completed;
?
would require that more time overall on public input processes, as each ZTA would require
separate roundtable meetings and/or public hearings;
?
to carry out a major change to regulations in the RA zoning district for phasing, and then
some time later present another complex ZTA for clustering, may lead to more frustration
for RA residents and landowners than a single comprehensive ZTA that includes both
phasing and clustering.
Staff's opinion is that, on balance, taking on the phasing ZTA concurrently with the
clustering ZTA will be more efficient in the long run, although it will likely extend the adoption of the
phasing ZTA. Understanding that the Board's highest priority is to address the rate of subdivision
in the Rural Areas, is concurrent review of both ZTAs a desirable change in course to take or is it
still the Board's preference to adopt phasing amendments first?
D. Desired Public Input Process:
The standard process for developing zoning text amendments includes public input at several
points. Specifically, there are four points in time where the public can be involved in the ZTA process and
three of these points allow the opportunity for public comment. These points are: 1) review of draft
ordinances by staff with focus groups (roundtables) representing affected parties or groups, such as
farmers and surveyors or engineers; 2) work sessions of the Planning Commission (public comment
typically is not taken at work sessions); 3) Planning Commission public hearing; and 4) Board public
hearing.
The focus group discussions with the impacted public (roundtables) are intended to help bring
forward a proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission, which has anticipated issues the public might
have and has "debugged" the ordinance of technical issues that typical users of the ordinance might find
difficult to use. For example, farmers from time-to-time have to subdivide their property for
September 14, 2005 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
financing/business purposes other than for the sale of and/or development of the land. How will phasing
(and clustering), as drafted by staff, affect this aspect of agri-business? This information can be obtained
from focus group discussions prior to developing a final draft for Planning Commission and public review.
The focus group discussion part of the ZTA process typically adds two or more months to the
process. This time is used to identify affected parties; notify individuals/groups; distribute proposed drafts;
allow time for invitees to review the draft; hold the roundtable meeting(s) and follow-up meetings, as
necessary; allow 1-2 weeks for follow-up written comments; and staff review of comments (that may
include follow-up contacts, depending on comments received). Focus group discussions account for a total
of 6 months of total review process for both the phasing and clustering amendment schedules.
Each ZTA (phasing and clustering), if done separately, will also require two public hearings
(Planning Commission and Board). Staff anticipated the possibility of the need for additional time for
advanced public notice and response to extensive questions from the public prior to public hearings, due to
the significance and complexity of the amendments that may be perceived by the general public. The
need for an "open house" meeting may also be necessary to better explain/educate the public about each
ordinance. The public hearing processes account for an additional two months to the total review schedule
for completing both ordinances, if the ZTAs are done separately. If the ZTAs were combined, only one
public review process would be necessary, and two months could be saved in the schedule.
The following options may be considered by the Board and the Commission in order to expedite the
text amendment process:
?
eliminate early roundtable reviews/discussions and forward the draft text amendment to the
Commission for work sessions and public hearings. (However, it is important to add a note
of caution that this time could be lost later in the review process, if major issues are missed
and additional work sessions and public hearings are necessary). This option would allow
the ZTAs to be brought forward to the Commission sooner.
?
reduce the total number of public hearings and possibly work sessions by the Commission
by consolidating the two text amendments.
Staff’s work on the phasing ZTA is slightly ahead of schedule (roughly 1-2 months ahead of
schedule). If the focus group roundtables are eliminated from the ZTA process, staff could begin working
on the clustering ordinance within the next 1-2 months
Consolidating the text amendments would reduce the number of public hearings and work
sessions. Eliminating the early roundtable discussions also would expedite the text amendment
process. Staff estimates time savings of up to 8 months with these two measures. Does the Board
want to consider a condensed public input process?
E. Consultant or Contract Assistance
The purpose of this work session is to receive information/guidance from the Board and the
Commission on the key issues in each amendment and on the public input process to provide a better idea
of the time needed to bring the ordinances to the Commission for review. Once staff has an understanding
of these points, it can better determine how beneficial consultant services would be in advancing the
projects. Staff's caution on advising on the benefit of consultant services is that it is difficult to predict the
true benefit of contractual support, particularly consultant services. Staff has estimated that consultant
support could theoretically advance the project by approximately six months. However, the following should
be noted:
?
It may be difficult to find qualified consultants that are familiar with the state code and
County regulations/policies and processes.
?
Procurement of consultant services is time consuming, requiring development of a scope
of work and request for proposal, advertisement time, interviews, and contract negotiations.
Procurement can take 2-5 months to complete.
?
Staff time would still be required to manage the contract and work of the consultant, which
can reduce the overall benefit, in terms of time gained, to the project.
Staff’s experience with using consultants for ordinance amendments is very limited. All text
amendments in the recent past have been developed by County staff. Therefore, staff’s estimate of time
savings is not based on a significant amount of experience with using consultants for this purpose.
One aspect of amendment work where it may be beneficial to have consultant support would be in
drafting the development standards for the clustering provisions. The benefit of the consultant to the
project would be in providing additional design expertise and adding review hours to the project (potentially
reducing the schedule). The scope of this work and cost would be more limited than previously estimated
(approximately $50,000). Staff would not recommend funding of a consultant at this time until staff has fully
developed an outline of the clustering ordinance that has been reviewed with, and supported by, the
Commission. At that time staff will have a better understanding for need for additional support
Staff's opinion is that there are several approaches which have been suggested to reduce
the schedule for the ZTA’s and that those should be pursued first to advance the ZTAs using
existing staff. The need for consultant support will be reconsidered as staff completes work on the
clustering ordinance outline
September 14, 2005 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 4)
Taking into consideration staff's preliminary work on the clustering amendment and the expedited
outline for the phasing ordinance, it is staff's opinion that consultant services are not required at this time.
However, should the Board determine that a consultant should be hired, the budget impact for
consultant/temporary staff services would depend on the scope of work remaining for him/her to
accomplish. However, the estimated cost would be approximately $50,000, less than the amount of the
th
projected $60,000 to $120,000 noted in the July 6 report.
There would not be any budget impact for the other options listed in staff's recommendations.
Staff believes that the advantages of combining the phasing and clustering amendments processes
would provide a greater opportunity to expedite the text amendment process and, ultimately, would provide
for a more efficient and effective review with the public. Staff also believes it can advance the delivery of a
draft ordinance to the Planning Commission by reducing the public input part of the ZTA process. Any
additional public input processes would be determined by the Planning Commission, as part of its review of
the draft ordinance. These changes to the process would reduce the schedule for completing both phasing
and cluster provisions by 8 months, from April 2007 (for clustering) to July 2006. Therefore, staff
recommends:
?
Forward the phasing amendment information (Attachments A and B-on file) and the work
done to date on the cluster amendment (Attachment C-on file) to the Planning
Commission for a work session in October (without the roundtables and the time needed
to draft an ordinance) for initial review and direction;
?
After the October Commission meeting, staff will begin more detailed work on developing
the cluster ordinance, with delivery of an outline for clustering provisions presented to the
Planning Commission for review and direction by May of 2006;
?
Based on direction from the Commission in February, proceed with development of a draft
ordinance for both phasing and clustering to be delivered to the Planning Commission by
July 2006.
The above recommendations would expedite the text amendment process as follows:
October 2005 - Phasing and clustering information to Planning Commission for guidance.
May 2006 - Clustering amendment outline/information to Planning Commission (and any
proposed adjustments to the phasing component).
July 2006 - Draft phasing and clustering ordinance based on Planning Commission direction.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked about the reference to “releasing a fixed number of new lots from a parent
parcel,” asking what number staff is looking for.
Mr. Benish responded that development rights are set by existing ordinance, and there is no
proposal to change the way in which they are calculated. He noted that the outline presented and the work
done to date is recommending that two lots are allowed to be platted within a 10-year period as a rate of
phasing. Mr. Benish said that this approach seems to control growth on each parcel, but in order for
phasing to be effective the right number of lots and time period must be chosen.
Mr. Boyd said that he did not remember phasing being an item of primary importance, emphasizing
that he is not convinced that phasing is the right thing to do at this time. He wants information on the cost,
the impact on property rights, what is accomplished, etc. He would like to know more of the history of
phasing and what its impact is, and the legal aspects of it. Has it been challenged in court?” Mr. Boyd
added that he feels phasing is “one step down the ladder in terms of taking away people’s property rights by
imminent domain.”
Ms. Thomas replied that Mr. Boyd was not on the Board when they sat down with the Planning
Commission to discuss reduction of development rights in the rural area. She said that both bodies agreed
not to do so, but still felt that there should be a reduction in speed and intensity of rural areas development.
Ms. Thomas added that they agreed not to do a re-rezoning. They made that decision which sort of started
this path of doing something else. She said that the county has promised people that the whole purpose of
the Neighborhood Model is to reduce development in the rural area, and phasing was an idea that has
worked in Madison County by keeping large outside developers out. Ms. Thomas stated that people in the
rural areas are “frantic” about the pace of development there, with concerns raised about lack of sufficient
infrastructure such as roads. She has a lot of frantic people waiting eagerly for the Board to be able to
accomplish something. She believes that the faster we move on this the better.
Mr. Boyd stated that he is not convinced this is the best solution to this problem.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the Board went through this same discussion during adoption of the
rural areas plan, contemplating which strategies would be recommended for implementing its goals.
Mr. Boyd said that there was significant time spent on clustering, but not on phasing. Mr. Rooker
responded that they went through it page by page, and one of the most potentially successful strategies for
reducing rural areas development was phasing. Mr. Boyd stated that he does not want to take away
people’s personal property rights.
September 14, 2005 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 5)
Ms. Higgins mentioned that the Planning Commission was focused on this, and clustering has been
a focus because it has been over a year since the ability to create anything over 20 lots in defined open
space in the rural areas has been removed. The reason combining phasing and clustering is not widely
done, is because there are ways you can phase that would defeat clustering provisions, and clustering is a
way to master plan a whole area. Ms. Higgins added that phasing clustering puts up an obstacle to master
planning an entire parcel, emphasizing that phasing has a mixed history of success. She said that
clustering for more than 20 lots had been granted through special use permit and are now being done by-
right.
Mr. Rooker asked how many 20+ lot subdivisions she was aware of moving forward in the rural
areas. Ms. Higgins replied that there have been some by-right, and there have been pre-application
meetings for some.
Ms. Thomas said that clustering is indeed a way to develop the rural area but she did not think that
was the Board and Commission’s purpose.
Mr. Dorrier stated that he does not remember discussing the specifics of phasing, adding that the
clustering was a better use than having homes spread out. He thought the Board agreed that clustering
was a positive step forward.
Mr. Benish mentioned that phasing and clustering were both a fundamental part of the rural areas
plan, stating that phasing is “simple.” He said that there was consensus among the Planning Commission
that phasing was important.
Mr. Dorrier asked who would have the right to phase, and when.
Ms. Thomas explained that every single lot would have that right.
Ms. Joseph said that it is already being done in the counties of Orange, Augusta, and Madison. We
are not on the cutting edge here. It has been done for years.
Ms. Higgins commented that it has not been done in conjunction with clustering.
Ms. Joseph said every parcel that now has development potential will retain the development
potential. It is not going away. It is just going to be years down the road. She always thought the idea
behind having these smaller lots in the rural areas was to help protect the person who was engaged in
agriculture, that if they got into a bad year because of drought or whatever situation that they would be able
to sell that lot to be able to keep the farm. She thinks that is what was contemplated at the time, and so this
value was still there. She added that many people have seen the development of Crozet and other rural
areas and wonder where the balance is. If we are going to sacrifice our urban districts, then we have got to
do something to save the rural areas.
Mr. Edgerton commented that that is in the Comprehensive Plan as a reason, a target to move
toward.
Mr. Rooker noted that if you are going to have public amenities within an area, it must be planned in
a larger scale. He said that they have spent a fair amount of time talking about these concepts before the
rural areas process was started, realizing that when looking at the number of lots being developed in the
rural areas, the Comp Plan objectives were not being achieved. There was certainly a consensus at that
time and it appeared to him that there was consensus when the Board voted and approved the
Comprehensive Plan with that strategy. The two primary strategies in the Plan were clustering and phasing.
Mr. Dorrier said that he is favor of clustering, but mandated phasing from a central office in
Albemarle County is going to cause problems unless its perceived as being fair and equitable and
necessary. He asked how Augusta is doing this.
Mr. Edgerton stated that clustering is not going to slow down development in the rural area.
Mr. Boyd commented that it would preserve open space.
Mr. Edgerton asked what other vehicles are available to slow it down, re-emphasizing the stated
goal of slowing down growth in the rural areas. If the goal of preserving the rural areas is adhered to, there
must be some way to slow it down. Mr. Edgerton stated that if the county encourages urban development
and does nothing to slow rural development, they are heading in the wrong direction.
Mr. Boyd disagreed by stating that ACE, The Nature Conservancy, etc. are purchasing
development rights. Mr. Edgerton said that it is helping, but not keeping up with the pace of development.
Mr. Boyd stated that he does not want to step on individual property rights. Mr. Rooker said that
every regulatory decision made steps on property rights – even zoning itself. The question is what do we
need to do to achieve that goal [of protecting the rural areas].
Mr. Boyd responded that the county is doing a lot of things already, such as the Neighborhood
Model.
September 14, 2005 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Rooker stated that in 1980, the county “had the guts” to move forward with zoning, otherwise
there would be a lot for every two acres in the rural area as a matter of right. The question is what do we
have the guts to do to protect the rural areas.
Mr. Boyd said he does not have the guts to take away people’s personal property rights.
Mr. Rooker asked what other strategy is available, other than downzoning property, which we have
decided to stay away from, other than phasing and clustering.
Ms. Thomas added that phasing came to the Board from the Planning Commission, and perhaps
the Board did not spend as much time on it because there was not much argument against it. It was up to
Board members to bring it up if they did not like it at that point.
Mr. Dorrier noted that it is unknown how this combination of clustering and phasing is going to work
out.
Mr. Rooker responded that these are strategies that everybody at this table voted for in the Rural
Areas Plan. He added that the question is how to implement them, pointing out that there a number of
localities that have adopted phasing as a strategy. Mr. Rooker asked if the Board if they could move
forward enough to have the Planning Commission look at these concepts and come back with a
recommendation.
Ms. Higgins said that her understanding was that these would be tools, with full research done on
each and the recommendations then forwarded to the Board. She noted that the idea of clustering is to
encourage people to live where there are more services.
Mr. Wyant commented that there needs to be a form of design such as clustering if the goal is to
preserve large tracts of open space, adding that the combination has not worked well.
Mr. Benish said that staff has not found a comparable working example.
Ms. Thomas stated that she is in favor of finding out if the combination works.
Mr. Benish noted that the Comp Plan does point out general guidelines, and the only real way to
implement phasing is through a text amendment process. He said that this is a stepping off point, and full
analysis is done through the ZTA process, with implications for impacts. He thinks if you look at the
sequence of questions here, the recommendations they are making are putting these together which allows
staff to give you more information on clustering and look at that in the context of phasing.
Mr. Rooker said that there is nothing that prevents the Board from adopting one or the other or
both, noting that the Board did adopt through the Rural Areas Plan both strategies.
Mr. Boyd stated that he wants to see both pros and cons. He also asked for some kind of
accounting as to how much staff time translates into dollars.
Mr. Bowerman commented that it seems like there are already three Board members against
phasing.
Mr. Rooker replied that once more information is available, people may change their minds.
Mr. Wyant asked about getting the community involved early on to get “buy-in”, so that a lot of work
is not done only to have the concept opposed.
Mr. Rooker said that the Planning Commission will come back with recommendations about how
phasing might be implemented, how clustering might be implemented, whether or not they should be
implemented together, what the best public information process is, and history on how these have been
implemented in other counties and how they have worked.
Mr. Boyd added that he would like information on legal challenges also.
Mr. Dorrier asked for information on how this would impact affordable housing.
Ms. Thomas said that it is unlikely that the rural areas are going to be the safety valve for affordable
housing.
Mr. Rooker stated that a five-acre lot itself is probably going to be cost prohibitive.
Mr. Edgerton said that he hopes slowing rural area sprawl down, the county won’t have to spend
resources to correct “nightmare situations,” and make villages more of a reality.
Mr. Rooker added that trying to provide infrastructure in the rural areas is a nightmare, and is costly.
Mr. Edgerton commented that if the resources do not have to be spread thin in the rural areas, they
can be focused on the areas of urban development.
September 14, 2005 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Benish said that staff will turn this over to the Planning Commission for further discussion, then
come back with more comprehensive information on each strategy. He emphasized that staff is not trying
to avoid a public roundtable process, adding that staff would like to set some parameters for a plan based
on early work done with the Commission and the Board.
Mr. Rooker summarized that the four issues to now take to the Commission are: (1) phasing – how
it would work, experience in other localities; (2) clustering – how it would work, experience in other localities;
(3) how they might be implemented together; (4) public information process. He said that the Board and
Commission could meet again using those issues as a guideline.
Ms. Thomas said that she is concerned that one-half of the Board is more in favor of one than the
other, and the best way to get consensus is to find out how they work together.
Mr. Boyd stated that he wants more information.
Mr. Dorrier added that he would like more information on clustering and phasing done in Augusta.
Ms. Higgins said that she is concerned that there may not be enough opportunity for public input.
Mr. Morris commented that he feels the public should be used as a source during the first three
points Mr. Rooker mentioned.
Ms. Higgins noted that this is a huge task, and wondered if a consultant might need to be brought in
early on.
Mr. Rooker said that right now, staff recommends working on this internally.
Mr. Benish mentioned that staff will not know what is involved until they get further into it, and has
not worked with consultants in the past on Zoning Text Amendments. He noted that it takes time to find and
manage consultants.
__________
b. Matters not Listed on the Agenda. There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. Closed Session. At 5:05 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Boyd that the Board
adjourn into closed session under subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards, committees, and
commissions.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
________________
Agenda Item No. 4. Certify Closed Session. At 5:59 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of
each Board member’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
session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session
The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Adjourn. There being no further business to come before the Board, the
meeting was immediately adjourned following certification of the closed session.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 12/14/2005
Initials: DM