Board of Supervisors June 28, 2022 Sheet 1  June 28, 2022  County of Greene, Virginia  THE GREENE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MET ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2022, BEGINNING AT 5:30 P.M. IN PERSON IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING  MEETING ROOM AND BY2 ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATION  Present were:  Marie Durrer, Chair Dale Herring, Vice Chair Steve Bowman, Member Abbey Heflin, Member Davis Lamb, Member  Staff present:  Mark B. Taylor, County Administrator Kelley Kemp, Assistant County Attorney Kim Morris, Deputy Clerk Jim Frydl, Director of Planning and Zoning Tracy Morris, Director of Finance Terry Beigie, Grants Writer  RE: BUDGET PROCESS WORK SESSION  The Board held a work session to discuss ways to improve the budget process. Ms. Morris shared her current budget schedule with the Board. She shared that, with limited staff, iti is difficult to add anything additional to the budget schedule. Mr. Herring said that he liked what Interim County Administrator, Ms. Garton, did with the budget process. He said that she brought Board members in two at a time and went over the budget with them. She also handed out budget books at least a week prior to the first hearing. This allowed Board members to ask questions and have al better understanding of the budget before they started the workshops. He feels there should be al lot more dialogue during the workshops. He said that, even if we can't start the process earlier, the Board should have all of the information earlier. Mr. Lamb agreed. He said that he did not have enough time to go through the book during this budget cycle. Mr. Bowman said that there are things that the Board can doj prior to December that Ms. Morris would not have to be involved in such as discussing priorities for the upcoming year. Then the Board would be able to give guidance to Mr. Taylor and Ms. Morris as to what they would like to see. Mr. Bowman said that there are agencies and departments that don'tspend all of their money by the end of the year and, ifthat is an excessive amount, the Board needs tol look at why. He feels that the Board should look back over several years and if this pattern is there, the Board should look at the amount of contingency they are allowing. This way, more could be put towards the CIP budget. Mr. Lamb    Board of Supervisors June 28, 2022 Sheet 2  suggested that the Board look at the CIP more than just once per year. Mr. Herring said that the Board should start addressing their goals in July. Mr. Bowman said that if departments have money left at the end of the year, they could assign it to a capital account which is designated for aspecific project. This way, the department wouldn'tfeel: like they had to rush to spend the money at the last minute, because they would be able to keep it and designate for a bigger project. Mr. Herring said that the projects would have to be part of the CIP. Mr. Bowman agreed. The Board discussed zero based budgeting and program budgeting. Mr. Herring said that the Board should start holding Town Hall Meetings SO that the public could ask questions and share their ideas with the Board. Mr. Lamb suggested that Ms. Morris should work closely with Treasurer Deal to watch the cash flow and perhaps be able to start investing again. Ms. Morris said that we currently have no money invested. Mr. Bowman suggested that a staff member be added that would deal with the strategic financial planning, long-term investments, the CIP, etc. and would work closely with the Commissioner of Revenue and the Treasurer. Mr. Taylor agreed that we will need to add a staff person for FY24 that can look at the needs of the County on a multi-year horizon. Mr. Bowman agreed. He said that the Board should be thinking about budgeting for the future, not just on an annual basis. Mr. Taylor shared an excerpt from another localities' budget that showed the use oft trend analysis and financial forecasting. He said that he feels that this is something that could be accomplished by a new budget position for our County. Mr. Bowman said that this was the exact kind of thing he wanted to see. He feels that we should have aj plan for all oft the future growth that is coming. He feels that planning like this would be a full-time job. Ms. Heflin suggested that the county consider hiring consultants. She also asked that there be a breakdown of revenues, as well as expenditures, in future budget cycles. Ms. Heflin also suggested the idea of an EMS tax where the amount collected would be designated for emergency services. She feels that citizens would be more understanding of a specialized tax rather than just an increase in their real estate tax. Mr. Taylor said that you could advertise on the tax bill what each penny of the collected tax is designated for. Mr. Bowman said that some localities use a picture of a one- dollar bill and show slices of it and what each represents. Mr. Herring said that he hopes that we move forward with these suggestions because he feels the Board is making progress with the budget process. Ms. Heflin offered her assistance in any way that Mr. Taylor sees fit. She said that she  could come in and create graphics, etc. RE: CLOSED MEETING  Ms. Kemp read the proposed resolution for closed meeting.  WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Greene County desires to discuss in Closed Discussion, consideration, or interviews of prospective candidates for employment; assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of specific public officers, appointees, or employees of any public body concerning the county  Meeting the following matter(s):  administrator and the Jefferson Madison Regional Library Board of Trustees.  Consultation with legal counsel pertaining to actual or probable litigation, where such    Board of Supervisors June 28, 2022 Sheet 3  consultation in open meeting would adversely affect the negotiating or litigating posture of the  public body concerning the Charlottesville Land case.  Consultation with legal counsel employed or retained by aj public body regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel concerning RZ22-002. WHEREAS, pursuant to: 22-371(A)0P(A)CP and (A)(8) oft the Code of Virginia, such NOW,THEREFORE, BEI ITI RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Greene County Upon motion by Davis Lamb, second by Steve Bowman and unanimous roll call vote, the  discussions may occur in Closed Meeting;  does hereby authorize discussion of the aforestated matters in Closed Meeting.  Board entered into closed meeting. Recorded vote:  Marie Durrer Dale Herring Steve Bowman Abbey Heflin Davis Lamb  Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  Motion carried. RE: OPEN MEETING Board returned to open meeting. Recorded vote:  Upon motion by Dale Herring, second by Davis Lamb and unanimous roll call vote, the  Marie Durrer Dale Herring Steve Bowman Abbey Heflin Davis Lamb  Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  Motion carried.  By unanimous roll call vote, members certified that only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirement and only such matters as identified by the motion to  enter into closed meeting were discussed.  Recorded vote:  Marie Durrer Dale Herring Steve Bowman Abbey Heflin Davis Lamb  Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes    Board of Supervisors June 28, 2022 Sheet 4  RE: APPOINTMENT OF MARTHA LEDFORD TO THE JEFFERSON MADISON Upon motion by Abbey Heflin, second by Dale Herring and unanimous roll call vote, the Board appointed Martha Ledford to the. Jefferson Madison Regional Library Board of Trustees for  REGIONALLIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES a4-year term which will expire on June 30, 2026.  Recorded vote:  Marie Durrer Dale Herring Steve Bowman Abbey Heflin Davis Lamb  Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  Motion carried.  RE: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OFSILENCE  The Chair opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance followed by a moment of  silence.  RE: ADOPTION OF AGENDA Board approved the agenda as presented.  Upon motion by Dale Herring, second by Steve Bowman and unanimous roll call vote, the  Recorded vote:  Marie Durrer Dale Herring Steve Bowman Abbey Heflin Davis Lamb  Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  Motion carried.  RE: MATTERS FROMTHE PUBLIC  Ms. Brittany Bornstein was present to ask the Board to consider prolonging the reassessment process as long as possible due to the high inflation rate and the personal property  taxes.  Ms. Gwen Baker was present to speak to the Board regarding tax relief for the elderly and disabled and for our veterans. She said that there are no links on the Commissioner of Revenue's page to help citizens with these tax relief programs. She recommended advertising these programs in the paper from October through December SO that citizens were aware that they exist. She also spoke about the Pearson's Appraisal contract and asked that, ifiti is approved, the County consider an MOU with the citizens saying that you understand the hardships they are facing and that the rate will be equalized and it will not be more than 45%. She said that this decision should not be discussed by Mr. Taylor or Mr. Frydl, but its should be discussed by the County Attorney.    Board of Supervisors June 28, 2022 Sheet 5  Mr. Greg Pumphrey was present to ask the Board to reconsider conducting a reassessment att this time because he feels it's immoral to tax people's property. He said that the Board members  are putting hardship on the citizens in a very real way.  RE: CONSENT AGENDA from the rest oft the consent agenda.  Ms. Heflin requested that the approval of the reassessment contract be taken separately Upon motion by Dale Herring, second by Stevel Bowman and unanimous roll call vote, the  Board approved the consent agenda items a. and C. as presented.  a. b. C.  Minutes of previous meeting 2022 (See Attachment "B")  Approval of reassessment contract - Pearson's Appraisal (See Attachment "A") Resolution to approve the Secondary Six Year Plan that was adopted on June 14,  Recorded vote:  Marie Durrer Dale Herring Steve Bowman Abbey Heflin Davis Lamb  Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  Motion carried.  Ms. Heflin said that her house currently assessed at $100,000 more than she purchased it for. She asked the Board to consider putting off the reassessment for a year to help the citizens. She said that she does not feel that one year would be that big ofa deal. Mr. Lamb said that he is also against conducting a reassessment at this time. Mr. Herring explained that the Board could equalize the tax rate on the newly assessed values and that this situation would actually benefit the citizens where their home values would increase but their real estate taxes would not. He explained that changing the frequency of the reassessments could prove to be very detrimental as the increases could be significant. Ms. Durrer reminded everyone that, after a reassessment, ifyou're not happy with the value, you do have the chance to go before the Assessor and then the Board of Equalization to plead your case. Mr. Bowman and Ms. Durrer shared the same sentiment in that, ifthel Board changed the frequency, it would be much worse for citizens. Ms. Heflin said that she iso only proposing changing it for the current year. She said that it can go back to every two years  after this.  Upon motion by Dale Herring, second by Steve Bowman and affirmative roll call vote, the  Board approved the reassessment contract with Pearson's Appraisal as presented.    Board of Supervisors June 28, 2022 Sheet 6  Recorded vote:  Marie Durrer Dale Herring Steve Bowman Abbey Heflin Davis Lamb  Yes Yes Yes No No  Motion carried.  RE: Public Hearing to consider a request from Kenneth Tatum/Crimson Rock Capital, LLC to rezone 40 acres (a portion of an 84.94 acre parcel) from R-1, Residential to A-1.Agricultural, located at 514 Celt Road, Stanardsville Mr. Frydl shared the request from Kenneth Tatum/Crimson Rock Capital, LLC to rezone 40 acres of an 84.94 acre parcel from R-1t to A-1. Mr. Frydl shared that this public hearing is only for the Board to decide whether or not this rezone would fit the comprehensive plan or not and whether it would be appropriate for the particular parcel. He explained that the second public hearing this evening would be for the Special Use Permit request for tourist lodging. Mr. Frydl explained the definition of tourist lodging and the uses that would be permitted per the Zoning Ordinance. He also explained that each primary use is accompanied by a range of accessory uses. He used the Greene Hills Club as an example of an accessory use with its bar and restaurant, which isa allowed as an accessory to its primary use which is outdoor recreation. They also have a pool, which is an accessory use, as well. Mr. Frydl shared the concept plan, an aerial view of the property, and the current zoning of the parcel and those surrounding it. He said that one of the key notes in the vision statement of the Comprehensive Plan is encouraging tourism. He also shared some oft the goals from the Town of Stanardsville. He said that we want to create an environment that promotes economic vitality through tourism, gives new opportunities for our existing businesses and new businesses, adds employment and increases local tax revenues and encourages travelers to get offt the main roads and stop to spend some time, and more importantly, some money in Greene County. He said that Stanardsville is primed for rebirth and regrowth with all of the investments they are making in the Town. They. just need the activity that encourages any type of business that's going to promote and provide people access to the Town SO that businesses have customers and more people can enjoy the things the Town has to offer. Mr. Frydl explained that the parcel currently has enough division rights for 124 lots that could be developed by right. He shared a slide that showed Oxford Hills, a by right development in Ruckersville, that has become just roads, grass and houses, which is a significant environmental impact. Mr. Frydl shared the  impact analysis for traffic, water and sewer and school children.  Mr. Matthew Woodson was present to state that there is al lot of passion involved with this project, but reminded everyone that we are all friends, family and neighbors, and that we should treat each other with respect and civility. He said that, over the last year, Sojourner's has spoken with many citizens who support this project. Some said that they just did not support it at the previous location. He said that the applicant is present this evening to bring forward the same project for Board consideration, but on ac different property, which overcomes some of the concerns  oft the previous application.    Board of Supervisors June 28, 2022 Sheet 7  Mr. Andy Murphy shared his presentation with the Board, focusing on things that were new and different than his presentation for this project when it was proposed in Mutton Hollow. He said that they believe this project is consistent with the Greene County Comprehensive Plan, as well as the 2025 Tourism Strategic Plan. He said that they plan to promote Greene County as adestination and raise the tourism impact. They plan to invest at least $400,000 in marketing on an annual basis. Mr. Murphy shared the same three commitments from his previous presentation and said that they are still inj place. He spoke about what at typical glamping customer is like to try to calm fears of loud, rowdy customers. Most of the customers are couples, with and without children who are seeking peace in nature. He shared the statistics of The Getaway, a glamping facility already located in Greene. He said that they stay booked most of the time with price ranges from $180 - $350 per night. He said that this is the third best performing of all of their nine locations. Mr. Murphy explained that Greene County does not have enough accommodations to satisfy weddings that are held in our area, forcing guests to stay in surrounding localities. He would like to see all of that money and tax revenue stay in Greene. He shared the property's location and characteristics. He shared that the 124 by-right homes translate to 496 bedrooms. He isonly asking for 218, making this ai far less intense use. He said that the restaurant and spa would be open for public use, even if not staying on the property. He explained that it would be the same as Lydia Mountain Lodge with their restaurant, Bear Appetit. Mr. Murphy said that he has been in touch with the Department of Forestry and, if the project is approved, they would work together toi identify any conservation or wildlife habitat issues and address those accordingly. Residents of Greene Mountain Lake had voiced concerns about the Blue Run stream that feeds their lake and he shared that this property is about 83 acres of the 4500-acre catchment and said that they will be good stewards of the land SO as to not adversely affect the lake. Mr. Murphy said that his tents and other structures will look and feel like part of the landscape and that he would keep them from the floodplain. He showed the emergency access on Southard Road and a path to the cemetery on the property. He explained that the plan for this entire part of the property is pedestrian only. He said that if the capacity of the property doesn't allow a certain level of use, they will reduce the plan to fit what the property can support. He showed where the camp store, electric cart storage, offices, parking, the restaurant and the pools and playgrounds will be located. He also shared the adult pool area, where couples without children could be. Mr. Murphy said that he believes this project can be a catalyst for the revitalization of Stanardsville. He has the support ofl Mayor Lowe and. Alan Pyles because of the business it will bring into Stanardsville. He shared the jobs that this project would create and how he would love to create internship programs for the youth of Greene County in collaboration with the Greene Tech Center. Mr. Murphy shared that this project will produce at least $723,00 a year in taxes and will increase over time to $3.8 million. He said that the County can reap the benefits of sales tax, meals tax and' TOT. He feels that this income could be used to help fund positions for the Sheriff, EMS and fire. Mr. Murphy also reiterated that they would make guaranteed purchases from local suppliers to help preserve the rural agriculture oft the County. He said that they will support local service businesses as well. He said that they feel like the conditions in the SUP will mitigate most of the perceived impacts and that this location is far better from a traffic perspective. He said that the nearby entrance was approved for more than 1000 car trips per day and that they are only looking at 309 when at max capacity. The goal will be to support this property with septic and wells, but there is public water on the other side of    Board of Supervisors June 28, 2022 Sheet 8  Route 33 that they are looking into. If the capacity is not there for either water or septic, the plan will be adjusted accordingly. He said that Sojourner's is committed to being al long-term partner Mr. Lamb asked about insecticides and pesticides running into Greene Mountain Lake. Mr. Murphy said that their intent is to use Virginia native species that will not require aj pesticide. He said thati ify you use native species, you willl have no need for pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers. He feels these are bad for the environment and bad for human beings and it will not be something they use. He said that he's more concerned about the runoff coming from the properties above  with Greene County.  this one.  Ms. Heflin asked how family members will be able to access the cemetery. Mr. Murphy said that if someone wished to visit the cemetery, they would notify Ms. Woods and himself sO that the gate would be open. In the case of a funeral, they would have access and would be provided a quiet and peaceful way toj pass through the property. Ms. Heflin said that she does not like that. She said it seems like a barrier. Mr. Murphy said that they would just need some notice and they would accommodate anyone wishing to visit the cemetery. Mr. Lamb said that he has to get permission to visit his great-grandfathers grave as it is on someone's farm. Mr. Murphy said  that is the standard practice for Virginia.  The public hearing was opened. There were 40 speakers. 30 spoke against the rezone, 8 People who spoke against approval of the rezone stated some of the following reasons:  spoke in favor ofit and two oft the speakers were no longer present.  property should remain residential environmental impacts ecological impacts keep the area rural family cemetery on the property spot zoning water table emergency services impacts  People who spoke in favor of the rezone stated some of the following reasons:  tax revenue land preservation retaining rural character buy, promote and hire locally economic benefits for all local businesses revitalization of Town of Stanardsville    Board of Supervisors June 28, 2022 Sheet 9  Mr. Bowman asked Ms. Kemp to clarify whether or not the Board is violating any parts of the. Zoning Ordinance orifti they are doing something illegal with this hearing. Ms. Kemp said that what the Board is doing is legal. She explained that it is a two-step process. The principal use would be tourist lodging or glamping and the accessory uses would be the pool, restaurant, spa and camp store. Those uses would not be allowed as stand-alone uses. Mr. Bowman said that he wants to ensure the fact that the Board is not doing anything to violate our Zoning Ordinance if they choose to pass this. He wants to be sure the process has been handled correctly. Ms. Kemp explained that the rezone is its own thing and the special use allows the Board to put conditions on the tourist lodging applications and look at them on an individual basis. She said that this is legal. It's simply just being done in two steps. Mr. Lamb asked Ms. Kemp to further explain accessory uses. Ms. Kemp said that accessory uses are considered on a case-by-case basis. She shared an example of a swimming pool, which would be a standard accessory use for al house ora country club, but probably not for a gas station. She said that it is fact specific and dependent on the kind of project. The Board continued to have discussion about tourist lodging and the uses  allowed and not allowed per our ordinance.  Mr. Herring said that he does not believe that the traffic generated by this project will bea hinderance. He said that hel had received a lot of questions as to why the applicant came back. He said that a lot of people, as well as some Board members, said that they really like the project, but did not believe that Mutton Hollow was the appropriate location and it is the applicant's right to come back. He said that Piedmont Environmental Council has said that they are in opposition to this project, but their website says they conserve land, create thriving communities, strengthen rural economies and celebrate historical resources. He said that if we want to maintain our rural heritage and our farmland, we must give farmers a place to sell their products. He said that approving this rezone will minimize the impact on the schools. He asked Ms. Kemp if the rezone is denied, will that negate the pubic hearing for the SUP. Mr. Kemp said that is correct.  Ms. Heflin said that the intent of this rezone goes against all sound zoning principles. She Mr. Bowman said that he has thought long and hard about this. When he ran for office, he said that he didi not want to see: more subdivisions because he wanted to maintain the rural character and provide farmers and others an opportunity to use their property ini the ways they wanted to and int the way they could make money. He said that he has seen similar situations where things were turned down and they ended up being subdivisions. He said that he will reluctantly support this  said that it is not suitable due to the proximity to R1.  project.  Ms. Durrer said that she will agree with Mr. Herring and Mr. Bowman. She said that she Upon motion by Dalel Herring, second by Steve Bowman and affirmative roll call vote, the  has lost sleep over this decision, but she will support this, as well.  Board approved the rezone request as submitted. (See Attachment "C")    Board of Supervisors June 28, 2022 Sheet 10  Recorded vote:  Marie Durrer Dale Herring Steve Bowman Abbey Heflin Davis Lamb  Yes Yes Yes No No  Motion carried.  RE: Public hearing to consider a request from Kenneth Tatum/Crimson Rock Capital, LLC for a Special Use Permit for tourist lodging for 144 units with accessory uses to include a restaurant, pool, spa and a meeting  facility located at 514 Celt Road, Stanardsville  Mr. Frydl said that there is no additional information for consideration.  Ms. Durrer called a 10-minute recess  The public hearing was opened. There were 25 speakers. Several that had signed up to speak left before this public hearing. 20 spoke against approval of the SUP. 5 spoke in favor of approval of the SUP. The reasons for against were the same as stated in the previous public  hearing.  Ms. Heflin apologized to Ms. Litton, the current tenant on the property. She asked staff and the Sojourner representatives why the Board was not notified that there was a current renter on the property. She said that this is insane. She said that this completely goes against our zoning  laws.  Mr. Bowman asked ifs staff knew that someone was living on the property. Mr. Frydl said that he knew there was al house on the property but did not know whether it was occupied or not. Ms. Durrer asked the applicantifthey still planned to dedicate 1% oft their revenue towards ap project that would benefit the citizens of Greene County. Mr. Murphy said that was still their commitment. Mr. Murphy also addressed Ms. Litton and said that he sees no reason that she cannot remain in her home through the end of her lease. He apologized to her for the people who  trespassed and made her feel uncomfortable.  Upon motion by Davis Lamb, second by Abbey Heflin and affirmative roll call vote, the  Board moved to deny the request for a special use permit as presented.    Board of Supervisors June 28, 2022 Sheet 11  Recorded vote:  Marie Durrer Dale Herring Steve Bowman Abbey Heflin Davis Lamb  No No No Yes Yes  Motion lost.  Upon motion by Dale Herring, second by Stevel Bowman and affirmative roll call vote, the Board approved the request for a special use permit for tourist lodging with accessory uses as  presented. (See Attachment "D") Recorded vote:  Marie Durrer Dale Herring Steve Bowman Abbey Heflin Davis Lamb  Yes Yes Yes No No  Motion carried.  Ms. Durrer called for a 5-minute recess.  RE: BOARDLIAISON REPORTS  Mr. Bowman said thel he attended the Planning Commission meeting on the 15th. He said that they reviewed the Parks and Recreation element ofthe Comprehensive Plan. He said that he feels there has been minimal input from citizens on the Comprehensive Plan and that disturbs him as that is an opportunity for people to alter the direction oft the County, ift that's what they want to see. They also spoke about a rezone at Route 29 and Route 33 for a convenience store with fuel  pumps.  Mr. Herring said that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission had a meeting to approve the Housing Preservation grant which is about $230,000. This grant will help to repair and rehab homes. He said that the Emergency Services Advisory Board met this past Tuesday. The Barboursville fire chief was there and they are offering mutual aid and assistance. He said that this is a temporary fix that we are grateful for. He said that they also had a conversation regarding recruitment and retention. They discussed reimbursing volunteers for gas use in their personal vehicles. He shared that Ms. Kaitlyn Schmidtt has graduated the Virginia Forensic Science Academy at the top ofl her class. She is the second person from Greene to graduate. He also shared that the areas that were challenged by CenturyLink in the broadband grant project are going tol be put back in, ifapproved, because CenturyLink was unable to reach an agreement. This means that CVEC will cover those areas which will give us greater broadband coverage than we  anticipated.  Mr. Lamb said that he will attend the Culpeper Soil and Water meeting tomorrow.    Board of Supervisors June 28, 2022 Sheet 12  RE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT  Mr. Taylor shared the lease agreement that the County has with Feeding Greene, Inc. for the property located behind the courthouse. He said that the timel has come to give Feeding Greene,  Inc. the county's decision on the intent to purchase the property.  Upon motion by Dale Herring, second by Steve Bowman and unanimous roll call vote, the Board directed the County Administrator to exercise the option to purchase the property from  Feeding Greene, Inc.  Recorded vote:  Marie Durrer Dale Herring Steve Bowman Abbey Heflin Davis Lamb  Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  Motion carried.  Mr. Taylor also shared with the Board the option of keeping the current Public Officials Liability Insurance policy or switching that policy to VACorp, which is where all of the County's other insurance policies are held. The policy offered by VACorp is much richer than the one we currently have. The Board discussed the differences between the two policies and directed Mr.  Taylor to switch the policy to VACorp.  Mr. Taylor shared an email received from Rappahannock Electric by the schools about some very steep increases that will be affecting their monthly bill. He said that the County had  not yet received that notice, but expects that we will.  Mr. Taylor said that a letter had been sent to. Mr. Shannon Dean regarding a communication that he had with Mr. Bowman about litter in his yard. The letter offers Mr. Dean a miniature version of the Adopt-A-Highway Program, where he could get the recognition for keeping the area  litter free, as well as free bags and disposal of the waste.  Mr. Taylor shared that he is gathering all of the information as to what assets RSA has in Greene County. He said that he has taken pictures of everything as a benchmark for what we expect to see when we close out the transition. Mr. Bowman asked ift the people that we hire will prepare operational protocols and procedures for every step of the operation that we have. Mr. Taylor said that is the expectation. He said they will start with existing conditions, priority lists for maintenance items that need to be caught up on and then establish protocols for our standard  of operability going forward.    Board of Supervisors June 28, 2022 Sheet 13 RE: ADJOURN Board meeting was adjourned. Recorded vote:  Upon motion by Steve Bowman, second by Davis Lamb and unanimous roll call vote, the  Marie Durrer Dale Herring Steve Bowman Abbey Heflin Davis Lamb  Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  Motion carried.  s Marie  y  Durrer, Chair  Mark B. Taylor, Clerk Greene County Board'ofs Supervisors  Greene County Board of Supervisors    Board of Supervisors June 28, 2022 Attachment A  RECEIVED JUL 182022 GREENE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR  CONTRACT for APPRAISAL SERVICES  THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into this 28th day of June, 2022, by and between County of Greene, Virginia, a political subdivision oft the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereinafter referred to as "the County"), and Pearson's Appraisal Services, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as  "Pearson" or "the Company").  WITNESSETH:  WHEREAS, pursuant to Virginia Code $58.1-3252, the Greene County Board of Supervisors has voted to carry out a general reassessment review oflocally taxable and tax-exempt  real estate in the County; and  WHEREAS, Pearson submitted a cost proposal for the services requested; and WHEREAS, the Greene County Board of Supervisors has voted to award the reassessment  review contract to Pearson; and  WHEREAS, the County and Pearson have reached an agreement for the Company to provide such services to the County and the parties desire that such agreement be reduced to  writing. I.  NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the parties as follows:  SCOPE OF SERVICES  A. The Basic Services shall be performed by the Company in accordance with the i.A full Multiple List Service (MLS) review of all 2021 and 2022 sales. The MLS review will include all properties that closed or that are offered for sale  terms oft this Contract and shall consist of the following services:    through November 2022. Corrections will be made to the existing tax office data from the MLS data toi include correction ofs square footage, bath counts, major renovations, heating and air, large outbuildings, and additions.  ii. Pearson will conduct a geographic information system (GIS) review of 10,400 parcels  using aerial imaging to locate improvements not previously assessed. iii. Pearson will conduct an onsite review of approximately 200 commercial and  industrial properties including updating commercial rates using Marshall & Swift cost manuals with local geographic adjustments and CoStar data. iv. Pearson will update the existing residential rates and depreciation tables V. Pearson will complete a detailed sales study by district and subdivision vi. Pearson will generate, print, and mail reassessment review notices  vii. Pearson will conduct the informal value appeal hearings and generate, print, and mail the change or no change notices resulting from the informal appeal  II. RESPONSIBILITY OF PARTIES  A. COMPANY RESPONSIBILITIES  1.The Company shall be solely responsible for coordination of the Project, including the work of the Company, the Commissioner of the Revenue and the County Administrator. Ifthe Company becomes aware ofany delay or problem that may hinder coordination among the various entities, the Company shall immediately notify the County's project manager and take appropriate  action to keep the Project on schedule.  2. The Company represents and warrants that its services will be performed in a manner consistent with generally accepted appraisal standards and practices and that it is familiar with all  2    federal, state, and local laws, regulations, codes, and standards that are applicable at the time the Company renders its professional services. Should the Company fail to comply with applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards, the Company hereby agrees to bear all resulting costs, including, but not limited to, the full cost of correcting its documents and the cost ofc changing the  affected documents oft the County.  4. The Company agrees to supply data entry personnel. The Company will supply the appraisal staff with normal tools of the trade, such as calculators, measuring tapes, and  transportation.  5. The Company agrees to cooperate with the Commissioner of the Revenue's Office in assessing new construction and property splits during the reassessment, sO as to avoid duplication  ofeffort or omission by both offices.  B. COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES  1.The County shall furnish to the Company one (1) complete set of the County'st taxmaps, showing the aerial photo overlay and access to any other pertinent data currently on hand in the County Real Estate Office, Community Development Office or Building Official's Office.  2. The County agrees to furnish adequate office space located within the County Office Building or reasonable proximity thereto. Adequate parking will also be furnished within a reasonable proximity of the Reassessment Office. Filing cabinets, all office furniture, miscellaneous office supplies, and telephone service, with a minimum of three lines, will be furnished. Adequate hardware and software willl be supplied by the County,includingr maintenance and daily backups. Pearson will not be held responsible for any delays as a result of hardware or  software problems ofany kind supplied by the County.  3.The County shall have the right to require the Company to remove from the Project any    person the County, in its discretion, considers to be unqualified or negligent, or the County, in its discretion, considers guilty of any misconduct in the performance of his duties. Any such person  so removed shall not again be employed on the Project.  III. FEES  A. Pearson will complete all appraisal review and clerical work fora total fee of One  Hundred Twenty Three Thousand Dollars ($123,000.00).  B. In addition to the cost of the parcel review, the County will pay Pearson Four Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($450.00) per day or Forty Dollars ($40.00) per permit  to measure and list new construction for taxation.  C. In addition to the cost of the parcel review, the County will pay Pearson Four Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($450.00) per day to defend any court appeals. D. In addition to the cost of the parcel review, the County will pay Pearson Four Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($450.00) per day or Forty Dollars ($40.00) per parcel to field visit and list any discovery of previously unlisted real property  improvements.  E. Statements will be submitted monthly, based on the number of parcels reviewed as  ofthe billing date.  F. The County assumes full responsibility for clerical assistance and all other costs for  the Board of Equalization.  IV. TIMETABLE/SCHEDULE OF WORK  Time is of the essence in this Contract. Notwithstanding any provision of the Contract Documents to the contrary, the Company agrees to complete all appraisal review services and to transmit final copies ofall files to the Commissioner of the Revenue no later than March 31,2023.    Execution and delivery of this Contract by the County shall constitute notice for the  Company to proceed.  V. INSURANCE AND INDEMINIFICATION  A. The Company agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless the County, its officers, agents, and employees, from and against any and all demands, actions, causes ofa action, damages (whether direct, indirect, incidental or consequential costs, losses, claims, and expenses [including reasonable attorney's fees]) of any and every kind arising out of any and all acts, errors, or omissions of the Company, its subcontractors, agents, or employces, inj performing services under  this Contract.  B. The Company shall secure and maintain at its cost such insurance as will protect it and the County from claims under worker's compensation acts; claims for damages because of bodily injury, including personal injury, sickness or disease, or death of any of its employees or of any person other than its employees; claims for damages because of injury to, or destruction of, tangible property, including loss of use resulting therefrom; and claims arising out of the performance of professional services caused by any errors, omissions, or negligent acts for which itis liable. Commercial liability insurance limits of $1,000,000 for each occurrence and  $2,000,000 in the aggregate will be maintained by Pearson.  VI. TERMINATION  A. This Contract may be terminated by the County upon the substantial failure of the Company to perform in accordance with all the terms herein, provided that the Company's failure to perform is through no fault of the County and shall continue for thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from the County specifying the nature and extent of such default.  This Contract may be terminated by the Company upon the substantial failure of the    County to perform in accordance with all the terms herein, provided that the County's failure to perform is through no fault of the Company and shall continue for thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from the Company specifying the nature and extent of such default.  B. The County agrees to pay the Company for services rendered through the date of termination or suspension, based upon the percentage of the Company' s services completed as of the date of termination. Such payments shall be paid by the County upon the Company'sd delivery tot the County ofa all data, drawings, reports, estimates, summaries, and such other information and materials as may have been accumulated by the Company inj performing the services included in this Contract, whether completed or in progress. All amounts payable shall be subject to the  County's right of offset. VII. MISCELLANEOUS  A. The Company represents that all persons performing services herein are employees or agents of the Company. Such personnel shall not be employees of, nor have any contractual relationship with, the County, nor shall they hold themselves out as, or claim to be, officers or employees of the County. The Company further agrees that in the performance of its services hereunder, it shall be acting as an independent contractor and not as agent oft the County.  B.Any legal action brought by either party to this Contract shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Greene County, Virginia and shall be brought only in such court. This Contract shall be governed by the laws ofthe Commonwealth of Virginia.  C. Discrimination: During the performance of this Contract, the Company agrees as  follows:  (I) The Company will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation, except where religion,  6    sex, sexual orientation or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation oft the Company. The Company agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions  ofthis non-discrimination clause.  (2) The Company, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on  behalf ofthe Company, will state that the Company is an equal opportunity employer.  (3) Notices, advertisements, and solicitations placed in accordance with federal law, rule, orre regulation shall be deemed sufficient for the purpose ofmeeting the requirements ofthis section. The Company will include the provisions ofthe foregoing subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3) in every subcontract or purchase order over $10,000 SO that the provisions will be binding upon  each subcontractor or vendor.  D. Non-appropriation: All funds for payments after June 30 of the current fiscal year are subject to the availability of a County appropriation for this purpose. In the event of non- appropriation of funds by the County Board of Supervisors for the items under this Contract, the County will terminate this Contract on July 1, oft the then current fiscal year. Ini the event funding fort the payment ofinvoices iss subject to the availability of federal or state funding and such federal or state funding is not made available, this Contract may be terminated effective the date of non-  availability oft funds for those items dependent on such funds.  E.This Contract represents the entire and integrated Contract between the County and the Company and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. This Contract may be amended only by written instrument signed by both the County and  the Company.  F. The Commissioner of Revenue, or a designee, shall be the County's project manager,    and have sole authority to administer the terms oft this Contract, and to execute amendments to the  Contract after consultation with the County Attorney.  G. The County and the Company each binds itself, its partners, successors, and assigns to the other party to this Contract and to the partners, successors, and assigns of such other party, in respect to all covenants contained in this Contract. The Company shall not assign, sublet, or transferany part ofi its interest in this Contract without the prior written consent of the County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have made and executed this Contract on the  date aforesaid.  COUNTY OF GREENE, VIRGINIA Mark_Taylor, County Agministrator   By:  Approved as to Form: County Attorney  PEARSON'S, APPRAISALSERVICES, Inc. hlwDan W. Pearson, Owner/Manager  By: Fred  8    and have sole authority to administer the terms oft this Contract, and to execute amendments to the  Contract after consultation with the County Attorney.  G.The County and the Company each binds itself, its partners. successors, and assigns to the other party to this Contract and to the partners, successors, and assigns ofsuch other party, in respect to all covenants contained in this Contract. The Company shall not assign, sublet, or transferany part ofits interest in this Contract without the prior written conscnt oft the County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have made and executed this Contract on the  date aforesaid.  COUNTY OF GREENE, VIRGINIA Mark B Taylor. County Adhinistrator   - By: AA  Approved as to Form: CAE  PEARSONSAPPRAISALSERVICES.Ine. falwtne Fred W. Pearson, Owner/Manager  By:    Board of Supervisors June 28, 2022 Attachment B  RESOLUTION  WHEREAS, Section 33.2-331 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, provides the opportunity for each County to work with the Virginia Department ofTransportation in developing  as Secondary Six Year Road Plan; and  WHEREAS, this Board had previously agreed to assist in the preparation of this Plan, in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation policies and procedures, and participated in a public hearing on the proposed Plan (2022-23 through 2027-28) as well as the Construction Priority List (2022-23) on June 14, 2022 after duly advertised, SO that all citizens of the County had the opportunity to participate in said hearing and to make comments and  recommendations concerning the proposed Plan and Priority List; and  WHEREAS, Carrie Shepheard, Resident Engineer, Virginia Department ofTransportation, appeared before the Board and recommended approval oft the Six Year Plan for Secondary Roads (2022-23 through 2027-28) and the Construction Priority List (2022-23) for Greene County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that since said Plan appears to be in the best interests of the Secondary Road System in Greene County and of the citizens residing on the Secondary System, said Secondary Six Year Plan (2022-23 through 2027-28) and Construction ADOPTED BY THE GREENE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON JUNE 28, 2022.  Priority List (2022-23) are hereby approved as amended.  Motion: Dale Herring Second: Steve Bowman  Votes: Heflin: Yes Durrer: Yes Bowman: Yes Herring: Yes Lamb: Yes  Yai eSus Marie Durrer, Chair Greene County Board of Supervisors  ATTEST  Mark B. Taylor, Clerk Greene County Board of Supervisors    Board of supervisors, June 28, 2022, Attachment C  0-2022-006  AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 40 ACRES OF AN 84.94-ACRE PARCEL ON TMP# 37-(A)-67 KEANETHTATUM/CAMSON ROCK CAPITAL, LLC FROM R-1, RESIDENTIAL TO A-1, AGRICULTURAL. WHEREAS, $15.2-1427 and $15.2-1433 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as may be amended from time to time, enable a local governing body to adopt, amend and codify ordinances or portions thereof; and WHEREAS, $15.2-2280, $15.2-2285, and $15.2-2286 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, enables WHEREAS the Planning Commission advertised and held a public hearing on the proposed rezoning on, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted! 5-01 to recommend approval of the request to rezone the WHEREAS, public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and/or good zoning practice support denial of WHEREAS, the Greene County Board of Supervisors caused to be published a notice of public hearing on WHEREAS, the full text of this request was available for public inspection in the Greene County Administrator's' Office, County Administration Building, 40 Celt Road, Stanardsville, Virginia 22973; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2022, the Greene County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this matter and all oft those who spoke on this topic were heard. At which time, the Greene County Board of NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, that the Greene County Board of Supervisors hereby approves Ordinance 0-2022-006 to rezone approximately 40 acres of an 84.94-acre parcel on TMP# 37-(A)-67, Kenneth Tatum/Crimson Rock Capital, LLC from R-1, Residential to A-1, Agricultural. (RZ#22-002)  (RZ#22-002)  alocal governing body to adopt and amend zoning ordinances; and June 15, 2022, and all oft those who spoke on this topic were heard; and  subject property; and this rezoning; and  this matter in the Greene County Record on June 16, and. June 23, 2022, and  Supervisors deferred action for further clarification  1    0-2022-006  ADOPTED BY THE GREENE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON. JUNE 28, 2022.  Motion: Dale Herring Second: Steve Bowman  Votes: Durrer: Yes_ Lamb: No Bowman: Yes Heflin: No Herring: Yes  /  ATTEST:  Rue CRes Marle Durrer, Chair Greene County Board of Supervisors  Mark B. Taylor, Clerk Greene County Board of Supervisors  2    Board of Supervisors, June 28, 2022, Attachment D  0-2022-007  AN ORDINANCE (0-2022-007) GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP22-003) KENNETH TATUMICRIMSON ROCK CAPITAL, LLC. REQUESTS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR TOURIST LODGING FOR 144 UNITS, AND ACCESSORY USES TO INCLUDE A RESTAURANT, A POOL, A SPA, AND A MEETING FACILITY. THE PARCEL IS TMP# 37-(A)-67, LOCATED AT 514 CELT ROAD, AND HAS APPROXIMATELY 84.94 ACRES. THE GREENE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP WHEREAS, $15.2-1427 and $15.2-1433 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as may be amended from time to time, enable al local governing body to adopt, amend and codify ordinances or portions thereof; and WHEREAS, $15.2-2280, $15.2-2285, and $15.2-2286 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, WHEREAS, on June 15, 2022, the Greene County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this WHEREAS, on June 15, 2022, the Greene County Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of the request to grant the Special Use Permit (SUP) with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Greene County Board of Supervisors caused to be published a notice of public hearing on this matter ini the Greene County Record on June 16, 2022, and June 23, 2022; and WHEREAS, the full application was available for public inspection in the Greene County Administration WHEREAS, on June 28, 2022, the Greene County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Greene County Board of Supervisors, in accordance with Article 16-2 of the Greene County Zoning Ordinance, public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice, Ordinance 0-2022-07 is approved with the following conditions (SUP#22-003):  DESIGNATES THIS PARCEL AS A "RURAL AREA (SUP22-003)  enables a local governing body to adopt and amend zoning ordinances; and matter, and all of those who spoke on this topic were heard; and  Building, Room 226, 40 Celt Road, Stanardsville, Virginia 22973; and matter and all oft those who spoke on this topic were heard.  1. The site must be developed in general accordance with the concept plan labeled exhibit 2. The site must not be developed with more than 1441 tourist lodging units (as indicated in 3. The internal living space of the tourist lodging units must be limited to 550 square feet for 1-bedroom units, 800 square feet for 2-bedroom units, and 1,200 square feet for 3- bedroom units. The 3-bedroom units will not be more than 20% of the units and 2- 5. The restaurant structure must not exceed 6,000 square feet, of which 3,000 square feet  A. exhibit A).  bedroom units will not be more than 40% oft the units. 4. The recreation barn must not exceed 6,000 square feet 6. The spa structure must not exceed 5,500 square feet. 7. The reception/camp store must not exceed 6,000 square feet. 8. The back of the house structure must not exceed 7,000 square feet. Additional structures for storage, utility infrastructure, maintenancemecnancal facilities, and similar back of house accessory structures may be located within the site and shall be reasonably sized fort the specific use, as reasonably determined by the Zoning  are for the guest seating area.  Administrator at the site plan stage.  1    0-2022-007  9. Structures associated with the playground area (kids club, indoor playground, and 10. The site must have a 20' landscape buffer, maintained and/or established, around the entire perimeter of the property lines. The buffers must consist of a mix of native trees 11.To provide recreational opportunities to the guests, the facility must include pools and 12. All primary and accessory uses must require a setback yard of 50' from the side and rear property lines and a setback yard of 100' from Celt Road. 13. The resort willl have strict evening/morning quiet hours (10:00 p.m.-7 a.m.) that will be enforced by on-site staff. Any events after those hours will be indoors. 14. On-site staff must be required at all times when guests are present at the facility. 15. The facility will not permit the projection or amplification of sound outside by guests at any time, and will not conduct any outdoor amplified music during quiet hours. 16. To reduce the adverse effects of stormwater runoff, the project will meet all local and 17. Before site plan approval, as required by State Code, the septic system(s) must be designed by a licensed engineer and then permitted by' VDH. The water system will qualify as a transient public water system and as such must be permitted and regulated by the VA Department of Health Office of Drinking Water before site plan approval. 18. The facility will engage with the Virginia Department of Forestry to develop and operate 19. The facility will use smokeless firepits for outdoor fire enjoyment. 20. All internal roadways on the property will be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles, as determined by the Emergency Services Director. 21.A5,000-gallon water storage facility willl be located on-site to support any fire 22. The exterior of all tourist lodging structures must be muted earth-toned colors, and black-out canvas in the tents must be provided to prevent light from passing through. 23. To ensure public, safety, and welfare, an onsite employee must be certified in CPR/First 24. An Automated External Defibrillator must be provided at all common space facilities. 25. Post-development tree cover must be equal to 75% of the pre-development conditions and must be shown on the required site plan. All new vegetation must consist of native 27. External refuse receptacles will be bear-proof, using the same systems used by the 28. Ift the facility offers golf carts for internal transportation, the carts must be electric. 29. The site plan shall include the minimum parking required under Article 16-8 of the 30. The outdoor lighting shall comply with Article 19 of the Greene Zoning Ordinance. 31. The facility signage shall be consistent with the regulations in Article 14-2-8.1 of the  similar areas) shall not exceed 7,000 square feet.  and shrubs.  playgrounds as shown in exhibit A.  state stormwater regulations.  based on a Forest Stewardship Plan.  suppression activities.  Aid.  trees and shrubs. National Park.  26.A50' riparian buffer must be maintained on the perennial stream.  Greene County zoning ordinance. Greene County zoning ordinance.  2    0-2022-007  ADOPTED BY THE GREENE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON JUNE 28, 2022.  Motion: Dale Herring Second: Steve Bowman  Votes: Durrer: Yes Lamb: _No Bowman_Yes Heflin: No Herring: Yes  Pai MarieDurrer, Chair Greene County Board of Supervisors  ATTEST:  Mh Mark B. Taylor, Clerk Greene County Board of Supervisors  Cous  3