Amid growth in Crozet, Albemarle seeks to maintain US 250 as a scenic byway

This article is the third in a four-part series on the future of Route 250 published jointly by The Daily Progress and Charlottesville Tomorrow.  Part: One, Two, Three, Four

By Brian Wheeler
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Stacy and Jonathan Hunt looked all over Albemarle County to find their first home. On Free Town Lane, just off U.S. 250 west in Crozet, the young couple found a small home built in 1925 on a lot of less than a quarter acre.

In a wooded area between Western Albemarle High School and R.A. Yancey Lumber Corp., their two-story home had a price and location that were just right.

“We didn’t buy a home in an established development. We bought a home that had been here since the 1920s,” said Jonathan Hunt. “We liked Crozet for what it is today. We didn’t come here saying we wanted more restaurants and stores.”

Five years later, the Free Town neighborhood now finds itself in the middle of a debate about the future character of both Crozet and the U.S. 250 west corridor. The Hunts’ neighbors, who include a number of lifelong residents who trace their ancestry to former slaves who settled there, are concerned about new development, traffic and their quality of life.

It’s a story of concerns that can be found along U.S. 250’s length from Keswick to Crozet, a key stretch of highway that has come under pressure from increasing traffic, but has little state funding for improvements to help drivers or pedestrians and bicyclists.

A new gas station has been proposed for a now vacant lot on the highway that is 300 feet from the Hunts’ front yard. Across the street is the Old Trail Village development in the Crozet growth area. And now, neighbors are also concerned about a proposal to build the Yancey Mills Business Park on 184 acres of mostly rural land that buffers their homes from Interstate 64 to the south.

“It is death by 1,000 cuts and it happens one little development at a time,” said Hunt at a recent neighborhood gathering. “First a gas station, then a Harris Teeter, and before you know it, the character of your community is gone.”

Part of the charm

U.S. 250 in western Albemarle is a Virginia Scenic Byway known today for its rural charm, limited development and mountain views. The highway’s 9.5-mile stretch from Broomley Road near Farmington to Yancey Mills in Crozet features two travel lanes and a central turning or passing lane in all areas except the narrow stretch through Ivy.

Scenic 250 formed as a grassroots organization in 1997 to protect the rural character of the highway. According to steering committee member Scott Peyton, it was a coincidence that the Virginia Department of Transportation launched a pivotal study of 250 that same year.

“It was a watershed moment,” Peyton said. “We had been previously unaware of VDOT’s plans to widen the road.”

VDOT’s final report in January 2000 recommended the widening of 250 west to four lanes between the US 29/250 Bypass near the Bellair neighborhood all the way to the railroad trestle crossing the Mechums River.

Scenic 250 vigorously opposed the road’s widening, a recommendation that VDOT made over the objections of the citizen committee participating in the study. The public argued that it made no sense to widen 250 when it ran parallel to the existing I-64.

With the strong support of Supervisor Sally H. Thomas, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution in May 2000 that committed the county to protecting the road as a two-lane scenic corridor all the way west to the county line. VDOT conceded that 250 was used largely for local traffic, and if residents wanted to deal with the congestion, that could be a local choice.

Since 2001, the traffic on 250 west has increased on all the sections measured annually by VDOT. Near Yancey Mills and Old Trail, traffic is up by 28 percent as of 2008. However, the section from Miller School Road to the Mechums River is up 48 percent over the same period, and from there to Ivy it has increased 41 percent.

New developments

Peyton thinks new homes being built in the rural area along 250 pose the greatest threat to the corridor.

“If you look at risks to scenic beauty of 250 west, it is not all tied to commercial development,” Peyton said. “Arguably, high-density residential development poses greater risks.”

In recent years, members of the county’s Route 250 West Task Force have petitioned unsuccessfully for the Architectural Review Board to gain more authority to regulate the appearance of residential developments visible from the corridor. Current and former task force members cited Cory Farms and Foxchase as examples of neighborhoods they wish had been visually buffered from 250.

Other observers interviewed for this story say it is Crozet’s growth and new projects on land zoned long ago for highway commercial that are the critical challenge facing U.S. 250 west.

Justin Beights is vice president of the Beights Development Corp., which is developing Old Trail Village. Old Trail and its adjoining neighborhoods have been approved for about 2,500 homes. According to Beights, the development has around 210 occupied residences today.

Beights said his thinking has changed about U.S. 250’s relationship to his development, because it once was where he wanted more of the commercial activity.

“We proffered a buffer along Route 250, so hopefully at the end of the day you won’t see too much more of Old Trail than you see today,” Beights said. “One of the Crozet master plan’s key components was the limitation of development along Route 250, and that has led us to the first phase of a successful village center [in Old Trail].”

Beights said the higher standards for development should apply to anything new on U.S. 250.

“We were held to a very high standard, and because of that, we have a quality product,” Beights said. “I would be frustrated if someone was not held to those high standards, particularly in a visible place like 250.”

Will Yancey, who has asked the county to consider a proposal to develop rural land outside the growth area and behind the saw mill as a new business park, said he also wants to be sensitive to “visual pollution” along 250.

“Our development would be invisible from Route 250,” Yancey said. “Furthermore, in a growing area like Crozet, which already has potential to double in size, you will need more jobs in and around Crozet, or you face the specter of having to widen 250 from Yancey Mills all the way to Charlottesville.”

Driveway jam

A neighbor of the Hunts, Vicki Whiting, was born and raised in Free Town. Whiting said she has reached the point where she is considering moving.

“I am caught between progress and familiar surroundings,” Whiting said. “The other day I left the house and there was a wall of cars on Route 250 and I couldn’t go either direction. I sat in my driveway for 30 minutes.”

Whiting said Crozet’s growth has made her feel like she is being “bombarded with an influx of people.”

“I feel like I live on a major interstate in the city and that 250 has become just insane,” she said. “I used to walk on 250, but it is not safe anymore.”

Crozet resident Barb Franko is a member of the Route 250 West Task Force who favors greater attention being given to the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, while at the same time keeping 250 west a two-lane road.

“I would like to see more greenways and bike trails connecting Crozet to Charlottesville,” Franko said. “That would help keep it more scenic in the future, protect the sides of the road from development, and increase the awareness of the people that this is a valuable asset.”

County Planning Commission work session hears objections from wine growers

By Tarpley Ashworth
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, November 12, 2009

The Albemarle County Planning Commission held an informal work session on Tuesday, November 10th to discuss how best to bring local zoning regulations in line with an updated state law concerning farm wineries. The Virginia General Assembly added language in 2009 to an existing farm winery law which mandated that localities take into account the potential economic effects on the wineries when considering regulation. The state also required that farm wineries be permitted to engage in activities that are “usual” and “customary” for wineries, such as tastings and hosting wedding receptions. Ever since this provision was revised, County staff has been working on changing relevant regulations to reflect these requirements.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: 20091111-APA-Farm-Wineries

Planning Commissioners, farmers and winery owners listen as the proposed ordinance is discussed

Wayne Cilimberg, the County’s Director of Planning, proposed an amendment to Albemarle’s zoning rules which he said would clear up confusion while also following state law. His proposal defines that “customary” winery activities include fruit harvesting, the sale and shipment of wine, hosting private gatherings and festivals, and tastings and tours among other activities. But the draft regulation requires that all of these activities take place during normal business hours, which is defined by the County as being between 9:00 am and 6:00 pm, and be limited to no more than 50 people.

The draft regulation would allow a farm winery to obtain a one-time zoning ordinance which allows them to operate outside normal business hours and at a maximum capacity of 200 persons. If wineries wish to host events having more than 200 people, the draft ordinance would require them to obtain a special use permit. The proposed rule change also expressly prohibits wineries from opening restaurants on their property.

Amelia McCulley, the County’s Zoning Administrator, told winery representatives that the application for a “zoning clearance” was fairly simple and would need to be completed only once by the winery. The application includes questions about the proposed use, frequency and duration of use, parking, sanitation, and temporary structures. The application fee is currently $35.

Cilimberg said that the application was necessary since it concerned events which “may make substantial impact” to the surrounding community, including neighbors and drivers. He also noted that these regulations were thorough because they applied to rural areas within the county, which are more protected than development areas.

Commissioner Calvin Morris (Rivanna), who chaired the work session, questioned the exclusion of restaurants on farm winery property.

“It seems that we’re almost providing restaurant facilities, but not permitting them,” said Morris, referring to the fact that catering, picnics, and appetizers are permitted in the draft.

Cilimberg responded that the restaurant prohibition was based on a distinction between activities which are accessories to wineries, and those which aren’t. He said more casual food like appetizers were considered an accessory, but that a separate commercial operation, such as a restaurant, was not.

Matt Conrad of the Virginia Wine Council, who spoke during the work session, called the draft legislation a “paradox” since the state had just issued, in his words, a “burden-shifting paradigm” which placed the burden on the County to prove that such regulation was necessary. Conrad took issue specifically with restricting farm wineries’ hours of operations, particularly since there was no mention of such restriction in state legislation.

“We know that the folks in Albemarle County are very reasonable. But there may come a time where we can’t always be certain who will be at the helm in the county,” said Conrad. “So we want assurances in this ordinance that the things that the General Assembly has allowed us to do will be permitted without obstruction.”

David King of King Family Vineyards told the group about his personal experiences of trying to get a special use permit from the County for his vineyard in 2007. He said the conditions of the permit would have “put us out of business” and so he helped pursue the new legislation.

Charlotte Shelton of Albemarle CiderWorks echoed previous concerns about the restricted operating hours. She said it was extremely hard to accurately predict the number of visitors for a certain event and that normal business hours should, at the very least, be defined by season since this influences turnout.

Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum called for the regulations to be tabled indefinitely because they would disrupt farm wineries’ customer traffic and profit.

“I think this should be a dead document,” said Williamson. “I would hate to see the County spend what limited funds it has to pursue a chapter that is only going to be mired in litigation in the future.”

Morgan Butler, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, was the only public speaker to defend the proposed regulations.

“The tricky balance is making sure the uses allowed are supplemental to the winery,” said Butler. “[Some] could have a substantial impact of public welfare.”

Greg Kamptner, the Deputy County Attorney, said that the county has struggled with determining what uses qualify as “usual” and “customary” since the state did not define these terms in the farm winery legislation. He also said that the County determined the normal hours of operation by surveying all the farm wineries in the county for their specific hours. He reported that the 9 am to 6 pm timeframe was actually more broad than any winery’s actual hours of operation.

Cilimberg clarified that the 50 person limit only applied to wineries’ supplemental activities and not to their regular business. He also said that the County was open to rethinking the limit on visitors and hours of operation and stated that the final decision about the details would be made by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.

Morris ended the meeting by acknowledging that the input was “very informative” in helping the Commission formulate the regulations. Cilimberg said that planners would take the discussion into consideration as they finalize the proposal for future review by the Planning Commission.

Experts discuss ways to boost Albemarle County farming enterprises

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, September 25, 2009

One of the best ways to help improve the business of agriculture is to connect consumers with food producers. That was one of the  main points raised during a panel discussion on the business of agriculture held Thursday by the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Free Enterprise Forum.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090924-Farms

Agriculture is the number one industry in Virginia, with an estimated annual impact of $55 billion according to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. In 2007, 895 farms in Albemarle County brought in nearly $4.5 million in gross income according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

However, many farmers would like to restore the place that farming once played in Albemarle. In his opening comments, Chamber Chair Bryan Thomas told the crowd that in 1940, half the population of Albemarle County was involved in some form of agriculture. However, he said by 1970, that number had declined to less than 6%.

The panel consisted of Agriculture Commission Todd Haymore, author Frank Levering and Chad Zakaib of Jefferson Vineyards

One of the panelists was Todd Haymore, Virginia’s Commissioner of Agriculture. Haymore, who grew up on his grandfather’s farm in Pittsylvania County, said today’s farmers need to capitalize on every opportunity, and he said the role of state government is to help facilitate those opportunities.

“What I’ve tried to do with precious taxpayer dollars is to make sure we’re putting them to the best use possible trying to create jobs and as much opportunity as we can,” Haymore said. He added that programs such as “Buy Fresh, Buy Local" and his department’s own “Virginia Finest” help connect Virginia farmers with Virginia consumers.

According to Haymore, agricultural development and farmland preservation are crucial elements to the future of the family farm. He lauded Albemarle County’s Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) program, which purchases development rights from landowners, but still allows them to use the land for agricultural purposes.

“If we can have all that come together, I see Virginia’s agricultural enterprises being number one for another 400 years,” Haymore said. 

Another panelist was Chad Zakaib, the General Manager of Jefferson Vineyards.  He said his winery’s land is under a conservation easement, which preserves it for future agricultural use - at a cost.

“As an entrepreneur, I look at placing properties under easement with skepticism because there may come a time when I have to liquidate that asset,” Zakaib said. “I’m not particularly interested in having someone tell me what I am or am not able to do.”

Frank Levering, author of a book on the divide between rural and urban Virginia, owns an orchard in Carroll County. He said agricultural tourism can educate people about the challenges and hardships of farming, which could in turn help more people support them.

“For years people have just gone and bought their food at supermarkets having no inkling of where that food came from,” Levering said. “All of a sudden, people are now very interested in who the guy was who grew it.”

Zakaib said that the vast majority of Jefferson Vineyard’s money comes from retail sales sold on premises.

“The reality is that the direct to consumer market is so much more profitable than a business-to-business relationship with a wholesaler or distributor,” said Zakaib. “The flip side is that there are legitimate issues with local government with the idea of people driving around the country buying wine.”

Recently, Albemarle County Supervisor Ann Mallek (White Hall) directed County zoning officials to look at ways to give more flexibility to allow farmers to sell their produce on land they don’t own.

One of the people attending the event was Carl Tinder, President of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau.

“The future of farming in Albemarle County is very bright, but we need to make sure that agriculture has the ability to prosper,” Tinder said. He says the number one thing the County can do to help is to preserve land use taxation, a program which lowers the tax burden for land used for agriculture, open space and forestry.

Another attendee was Sarah Henley of the advocacy group Forever Albemarle. She said she would like state and local laws changed to extend land use taxation to farmers who own less than 5 acres of land. She also called for local schools to boost agricultural education.

Zakaib said he saw a bright future for farming if more people knew about the challenges and benefits of farming.

“Overtime, I think farming will become cool because everyone has to eat,” Zakaib said.

Land use revalidation exceeds Albemarle assessor’s expectations; some Supervisors concerned too many landowners will get hit with roll-back taxes

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, September 3, 2009

Over 85% of Albemarle County landowners participating in the land use taxation program have submitted revalidation forms, exceeding the expectations of County Assessor Bob Willingham. The deadline to submit a form without incurring a late fee was September 1, 2009.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090903-BOS-Land-Use

The Board enacted the revalidation process in October 2008 to satisfy critics of the program who claimed it was being abused by people who were not actually using their land for agricultural purposes.  Properties that qualify for the program are granted a property tax rate that is lower than the fair market rate.

Forms were sent in late May to the owners of all 4,927 parcels in the program.

County Assessor Bob Willingham

“As of [the deadline], we’ve received 4,206 back,” said Bob Willingham, the County’s Assessor. “That’s about an 85% success ratio.” The remaining participants have until December 5, 2009 to submit their form. After that, they will be considered to be non-compliant with the program, and subject to paying the fair-market value for the past five-years. This is known as the “roll-back” tax, and can be a hefty amount.

Three weeks ago, the County began a public relations campaign to publicize the deadline.

Supervisors Ann Mallek (White Hall) and Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) even made personal phone calls to landowners in their districts, encouraging them to return the form.

Some Supervisors concerned about impact of roll-back taxes

Under the program, a landowner must submit a new form any time the use of the land changes, or if their parcel is subdivided. Willingham said that during the revalidation process, many landowners are hoping to adjust how their land is classified to take advantage of an “open-space” category.

The advantage to a landowner is that no agricultural work needs to be done to maintain the land use taxation.  For instance, in order to qualify for the forestry category, a landowner must provide a forest management plan.

To qualify for the open-space category, a landowner must:

• meet Virginia law’s definition for open-space
• must have more than 20 acres
• no construction or major disturbances could be permitted during the course of the agreement
• land must be either under a conservation easement, in an agricultural-forest district, or part of an open-space use agreement signed by the County Executive by the end of this year

Members of the Board were concerned that at least some of the landowners will not meet that last requirement in time. That would mean their land would be subject to “roll-back” taxes.

“It’s that transition that I want to know more about because what people understand is that they [may] have roll-back taxes when they’re only trying to transition to the right category,” said Supervisor Mallek.

Willingham said that in many cases, he has no alternative but to impose the roll-back tax if a landowner is not in compliance.

“People don’t want to hear that, but what you’ve got is a situation where people in a number of cases have had land-use for a long time and they really haven’t qualified,” said Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett).

Supervisors had the chance to adjust the open-space category at the meeting. An ordinance to authorize County Executive Bob Tucker to accept the open-space commitment agreements was on the consent agenda for the September 2, 2009 meeting. Supervisor Mallek and Supervisor Ken Boyd (Rivanna) were concerned that 20 acres was too large a requirement for open space. But Rooker was reluctant to decrease that figure.

“I would be very cautious about going down the road of adopting a plan that basically allows a lot that doesn’t have a house on it to qualify for land use,” Rooker said.

Thomas said she was concerned that elderly landowners might no longer be able to maintain their land, and consequently their qualification to remain in the land use taxation program.

“I’m sure you’re going to get a few people and it’s going to be horrendous and maybe force them off their land,” Thomas said. She said she would like to find a way to help connect those individuals with people willing to work on farming projects.

“We are working very hard with people not to remove them from land use,” Willingham said. His staff is educating landowners about how to become compliant if they are not already. Willingham avoided stopped short of using the word ‘lenient.’

"You don’t have to harvest trees every year. If you’re talking hardwoods it might be a 100 years. In agriculture, you don’t have to produce a crop every year because it’s good to let the land go fallow and regenerate,” Willingham said.

Mallek asked if there was any way to prevent such landowners from being penalized. County Attorney Larry Davis said state law requires roll-back taxes to be applied if the use of the land changes.

“If someone has stopped farming and made no provisions to try to continue farming for an extended period of time, that would be a change of use to a non-farming use,” Davis said. “If someone stopped farming for one season and had been continuing to try to find someone to till the property, that may be able to be determined to simply be idle and not be a non-qualifying use. That’s a judgment call that the assessor has to make.”

Supervisors will revisit land use taxation in 2010 to see how the revalidation program may be tweaked.

Supervisors seek zoning flexibility to allow for more farm stands

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, September 3, 2009

For the past nine years, Albemarle County farmer Nathan Yoder has sold produce on Thursday afternoons at a stand at the corner of Free Union Road and Garth Road.  Someone complained to County’s zoning officials about the stand, triggering an investigation. While Yoder has permission from the property owner, technically he is violating the zoning code because he does not own the land on which he’s selling his goods. The County is allowing him to continue operations through the end of this season.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090902-BOS-Farmers-Market

Ann Mallek (White Hall) brought the matter up at the Board of Supervisor’s meeting on September 2, 2009. She wants County staff to investigate ways to change the zoning ordinance to make it easier for farmers to sell their goods.

“If we’re successful in our local food movement and we are successful in encouraging new faces in agriculture, I’m very hopeful we’ll have many more opportunities for our local consumers to buy directly from farmers,” Mallek said.

Amelia McCulley, the County’s Director of Zoning, said a farmer is authorized to sell goods from their own property, and also on land that is zoned for commercial uses. However, there is nothing in the zoning ordinance that allows for a farmer to sell on land he or she does not own.

Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) asked County staff to expedite the study so that farmers across the County could have an answer before next spring.

Wayne Cilimberg, the County’s Director of Planning, said that staff is currently working on other issues, and work on amendments to the zoning code have been put on hold. There are currently several frozen positions in the department, including a rural areas planner position that has never been filled. He said he would try to get the matter before the Board in time for next year, but he could not make a guarantee.

White Hall resident Bob Rash asked a series of questions during the public comment period to help shape the work of County staff.

“How can we effectively have a farmer’s market without violating the law?” Rash asked. “Are all farmers in violation if they sell off their property? But most farmers do sell off their property because their farms exist in rural areas where there is very little pedestrian  or vehicle traffic. Can other farmers join one farmer who has produce to sell and his farm is on a road where he feels there is sufficient traffic to generate the business they need? Can we get a special use permit if we can’t resolve these issues?”

When reached by phone by Charlottesville Tomorrow, Yoder was busy selling basil, cookies and other products. He dealt with four customers in the span of a five-minute phone call.

“I don’t know that we’ll be able to sell from here next year, but we hope to find a way that is mutually satisfactory,” Yoder said.

Lowry criticizes candidates who signed consensus statement on water plan

By Brian Wheeler
Charlottesville Tomorrow
September 1, 2009

John Lowry says he is the only candidate in the race for the Samuel Miller District seat on the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that is taking a stand on important issues.  Lowry is running as an Independent to fill the seat being vacated by the retiring Sally Thomas.  Also on the ballot in the November election are Republican Duane Snow and Democrat Madison Cummings.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090831-lowry-enviro

At a press conference Monday, adjacent to the McIntire Road Recycling Center, Lowry said he was the first to have a position in support of the community water supply plan.

“While my opponents in this race take cover behind consensus statements, I believe that voters want to know where candidates stand on important issues,” said Lowry.

In August, Dr. Liz Palmer, a member of the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors, announced that Snow and Cummings had both signed a consensus statement indicating their support for moving forward with the fifty-year water supply plan approved in 2006.  

“I didn’t sign the consensus agreement because I had already made my statement and I think that needed some recognition,” said Lowry.  “I had the leadership to have my own point of view.”

Cummings told Charlottesville Tomorrow in an interview that Lowry had previously been in favor of signing the statement.  

“The three of us had agreed in July that we should sign the statement and take that off the playing field as a bone of contention,” said Cummings.  “Maybe he is trying to find some degrees of separation from the rest of us.”

“He said he probably would sign the statement but that he needed to talk to his campaign manager first,” Palmer told Charlottesville Tomorrow.  “Since he had already said he agreed with the [water supply] plan, we didn’t think there was any reason he would not sign it.”

Tom McCrystal, Lowry’s senior strategist, said his candidate did consider signing the statement, however Lowry determined it didn’t add anything to his previous position.

“He is willing to look at additional measures to protect the water supply,” said McCrystal who cited Lowry’s support for maintenance dredging of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. “John feels very strongly that it is important to take care of what we have.”

The statement signed by Snow and Cummings indicated they were “open to the possibility of selective dredging” separate from the fifty-year plan.  Snow told Charlottesville Tomorrow that the important issue for the community to address is how to move forward with a water supply plan.  

“Bottom line to me is that we need to move forward as quickly as possible and quit spending money on studies,” said Snow.  “I make my decision based on what I think is right, not what everyone else is doing.”

Lowry used his press conference to outline positions on other matters related to the County’s environmental resources.  He emphasized a goal of finding a balance between the use of natural resources, stewardship of the environment, and economic development.

Lowry pledged to protect the environment by supporting three specific initiatives: improved storm water regulations; support for regional public transit initiatives; and more convenient recycling options.  

During his remarks, several cars pulled into the recycling center and turned around after realizing that the center was closed on Mondays.  

“It is closed for lack of funding,” said Lowry.  “We need to be open for business when people are ready to recycle.”

Lowry also said he would also support and improve Albemarle’s land use taxation program and conservation easements as tools for preserving the character of rural Albemarle.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST

01:00 – John Lowry begins his statement about the environment
03:43 – Lowry discusses water resources
04:50 – Lowry discusses regional public transit
05:53 – Lowry discusses convenient recycling
09:44 – Brian Wheeler of Charlottesville Tomorrow asks about his statement that his opponents are "taking cover behind consensus statements"
09:58 – Lowry responds
10:44 – Wheeler asks if Lowry agrees with the principles of the consensus statement on the water supply plan
10:58 – Lowry responds
11:28 – Wheeler asks what the environmental pros and cons are of the community water supply plan
11:32 – Lowry responds
12:10 – Wheeler asks whether Lowry supports the County’s goal of reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050
12:25 – Lowry responds
13:00 – Wheeler asks about better access to recycling receptacles
13:20 – Lowry responds
13:43 – Wheeler asks whether the County should participate in the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
13:53 – Lowry responds
14:21 – Wheeler asks whether there should be a limit to how much the County should pay to subsidize recycling
14:30 – Lowry responds

Population study finds environmental degradation after area reaches population of 200,000; Current build-out population estimated at 400,000 people

By Brian Wheeler
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Sunday, August 23, 2009

A final report on local population and the environment, funded in part by both Charlottesville and Albemarle local governments, was released last week by Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP).  The Board of Supervisors agreed to spend $25,000 for the scientific aspects of the study, and the City of Charlottesville paid $11,000. Additional funding came from ASAP members as well as a $50,000 grant from the Colcom Foundation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The report, the first product of ASAP’s Optimal Sustainable Population Size Project, is entitled “Estimating Impacts of Population Growth on Ecosystem Services for the Community of Albemarle County and Charlottesville, VA.”  The report’s principal researcher was Dr. Claire Jantz, an assistant professor at Shippensburg University.

Download report

Charlottesville Tomorrow invited Jack Marshall, ASAP’s President, in for an interview to discuss the report’s findings.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090821-ASAP-Marshall

JACK MARSHALL INTERVIEW

Note: Remarks have been summarized and are not necessarily direct quotes. The podcast includes the entire interview audio.

TIMES CORRESPOND TO AUDIO PODCAST

00:27 – Introduction by Brian Wheeler, Executive Director, Charlottesville Tomorrow

01:05 – WHEELER: What is the major finding of this research?

01:14 – MARSHALL: Report is intended to help us understand how we define an optimal population.  First phase of research is to help identify biological carrying capacity of the Charlottesville-Albemarle community.  Report shows that as growth occurs, two things happen together:  1) good things like fields and forests disappear; and 2) bad things occur like impervious surfaces and pollution.  Continued growth will so impair ecosystem services that our community will not be locally sustainable.  Smart growth approaches (e.g. having designated growth areas) are necessary, but they are not sufficient.  Growth will ultimately spill out into rural areas.  Researchers are saying that we have to think about how big we want to be.  Do we want to cap growth before we reach these ecological danger points?

04:56 - WHEELER: Why did you do this research and can you tell us about the research team?

05:04 – MARSHALL: First, the research team was led by Dr. Claire Jantz , an assistant professor at Shippensburg University.  She is a specialist in land use change modeling.  We asked her to do this because as housing developments eat away at our environment, something has to give.  Our ecological system is not just a pretty face, they provide benefits of immense value to humans that we tend to take for granted and they are essential for sustainability of an area.  If they get degraded, the community is in trouble, and we wanted to see if local growth had a local impact on our very own ecosystem services.

07:35 - WHEELER: Why don’t you tell us about the methodology.

07:42 – MARSHALL:  For purposes of this research, WHEN growth occurs is not relevant.  First step was to project WHERE the growth will occur.  The City and County were divided into eight sub-areas and various growth levels were evaluated in a computer model.  Current zoning and historical development patterns were incorporated in the model.  Hypothetically, each area is developed to a certain build-out number, and then continued growth spills out into the rural area.  The population number at which no more development could occur in the computer model was found to be 400,000 people.  We have about 135,000 people today.  This build-out population estimate of 400,000 is pretty close to research done by a different methodology 5-7 years ago by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC).  Next major issue was to assess impact to ecosystem services with population growth using computer software called CITYGreen.

13:06 - WHEELER: You mentioned a couple population numbers, let’s review those again—135,000 people today, build-out population of 400,000.  Were you surprised that matched the TJPDC’s findings?

13:45 – MARSHALL: The fact that it coincides with the TJPDC build-out number pleases but doesn’t surprise us.

14:04 – WHEELER: What optimal sustainable population did this research indicate was a good fit?

14:18 – MARSHALL: You are pushing me to give you specific numbers, but all this research does is show what happens to certain ecosystem services as population increases.  At 125% population increase, which is about 280,000 people, roughly twice what we have now, there is in this model a degradation of ecosystem services, but contained primarily within the designated growth areas.  As growth continues, it spills out into the rural areas, and that’s when we see a whole different level of impact.  This report goes into detail about those impacts on ecosystem services.

16:18 - WHEELER: Let me read a quote from the report and you can react to it:

“If the community wishes to maintain ecosystem services across the study area, a population of roughly 200,000 or less should be maintained, with that growth being focused in the growth areas. If it is acceptable to sacrifice services in the developing areas, a population up to roughly 300,000 could be accommodated.”

Is 200,000 to 300,000 the population range that ASAP was looking for?

17:05 – MARSHALL: You are trying to get me to indicate a number or a range that ASAP wants to defend.  At this point we are not prepared to come out with specific numbers.  This is the first phase of the study focusing on biological carrying capacity.  Once we have the whole range of studies completed this fall, then we will be more inclined to come out with specific numbers.

18:52 - WHEELER: Let’s talk about the population trends.  She identified 200,000 as a population not to go beyond to avoid damaging ecosystem services.  How soon do you think we will reach 200,000 people?

19:20 – MARSHALL: City population is pretty stable, but County has been growing at 2.1% a year for the last 30-40 years.  At that rate, we double our population every 33 years.  Normally I would say you could extrapolate that, but we have slowed growth because of the global economic downturn.  There is no question that temporarily we are growing slower.  I am afraid that might lull our community into a false sense that we have licked the growth problem when in fact it will roar back as soon as people want to buy houses again. 

If we were to continue growing at 2.1%, I think that a population of 200,000 might occur in about the year 2040.

20:32 - WHEELER: You mentioned that there is additional information you want to get in front of local government, and that you want to gather public feedback about their reactions.  What do you think are some of the policy implications that local officials will have to wrestle with?

20:52 – MARSHALL: We think the community should be debating three issues.

1. Can our community population grow endlessly or should we cap growth at some optimal sustainable size, short of a size that would be determined either by accident or by the preferences of the folks who make a profit from growth and who are concerned much more with short term gain than the long term community good.  Do we want to grow endlessly, essentially until we get to this 400,000 number?
2. If we want to cap growth at some point, what is that right size?
3. What fair and legal mechanisms might be put in place to achieve this population size goal?

Just because we don’t have satisfactory answers to the second two questions doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to answer the first question.  We may not find answers to the second two questions unless we take the first question pretty seriously.  If we decide to avoid growing to the point where our ecosystems are destroyed, our quality of life changes, our taxes are jacked up….If we say we don’t want that, then I have a feeling that this very progressive, well educated, thoughtful community, can come up with the mechanisms, with the number (or range) at which to stop, and the mechanisms to do it.

22:43 - WHEELER: Some of ASAP’s critics over the years have said that you do want to identify a cap on population in this community.  Is that a goal of ASAP?

22:55 – MARSHALL: Yes.  Of course it’s a goal.  It should to be a goal for the whole community.  And we are leading the charge.  We don’t pretend to know what it is yet.  That’s the second question that I just raised of the three.

We have a definitive answer to the first question.  Should we continue to grow endlessly or identify an optimal sustainable size?  The answer to that, ASAP argues, is [that we identify an optimal population size].  The second question is, what is that right size?  We don’t at this point know, and that is one reasons we launched these research projects to help us identify it.

24:11 – WHEELER: Has any other community in the country done this?

24:15 – MARSHALL: In the press release, we say it is a groundbreaking study.  No other community in the United States is undertaking this kind of research to get a sense of its biological carrying capacity. 

25:08 – WHEELER: Why do you think that is?

25:10 – MARSHALL: This is an idea whose time has come.  More and more communities are recognizing that smart growth, while good, ain’t enough and that we’ve got to go beyond it and that communities need to identify the point at which they want to stop.  Our children’s children’s children will be irate if we don’t deal with this growth problem.  We will have failed future generations if we don’t deal with local as well as global population growth. 

25:54 – WHEELER: Some of the policy implications we might think about in this community include potentially downzoning rural areas, downzoning growth areas, water supply… are there others that you think about?

25:10 – MARSHALL:  Yes there are, but first let me go back to water supply.  ASAP believes that we should not be using water supply as a limit to growth.  What our community should do is define an optimal population size and then provide the water for that population.  But we shouldn’t limit growth by limiting water.  

Yes there are other [policy] mechanisms.  Conservation easements, the County’s Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) program, and we should look more seriously at the transfer of development rights.  But until we take the need to cap growth more seriously, we are going to dither about transfer of development rights, as happened in a series of contentious debates. 

27:40 – WHEELER: I want to go back to water and you clarified that it was not the position of ASAP to use the water supply debate happening in the community as a way to limit growth, or that you would build a water plan that resulted in limiting growth.  We talked about the trend in population, and if the current trend continues, by 2040 we will have 200,000 people.  That is a number your research says maintains ecosystems.  Supporters of the current water supply plan, who are trying to plan for a fifty-year time horizon, might look at this research and say we know 200,000 people now is a sustainable population number, should we plan to have enough water for at least that many people during the next fifty years. 

28:44 – MARSHALL:  You are trying to push me into a corner I don’t want to be pushed into, but yes that may well be one of the implications.  I have a feeling all sides of this water plan debate will find something in here to glom on to.  If the community makes a firm decision that we will make every effort to stop growth at 200,000, then yes our water supply should be aimed at that, and our schools, and our roads, and the whole infrastructure and we don’t have to build for a population of 300,000.  I think it would solve a lot of problems.  It would help decision makers make more wise decisions about how much commercial growth we need, for example, to me the needs of 200,000 people.

29:57 – WHEELER: I laid out one argument that supporters of the water supply plan might take out of this report.  Thinking about those concerned about growth, and there seem to be a growing number of people in the community, when they talk about the water supply plan, saying they don’t want to support growth in Albemarle County.  Is there something in this report or in ASAP’s position about this research that you think, some people that might say even 200,000 people is too many, how might you reconcile the research with some of those views in the community?

30:41 – MARSHALL:  This is the first of what we hope will be a whole raft of studies and its purpose is not to provide unequivocal answers to the kinds of questions you are asking, but to start to provide some facts where before we’ve had only had opinions about growth.  We need to know what growth means.  What will it cost us environmentally, fiscally?  What does it mean for the quality of life, for the character of our community? 

I know I have friends who think we are already overpopulated, that the 135,000 we have now is far too many.  I have other friends who think that 400,000 is nifty, and maybe even more.  A lot of it is going to be subjective opinion, but that should be informed by facts about the impacts of more or fewer people here.

32:00 – WHEELER: Where do you go next with this research?

32:04 – MARSHALL:  We have four other interesting studies in this first phase to help us understand the biological carrying capacity.  The other really big one is a look at our community’s ecological footprint.  Other studies will look at the impacts of population growth on groundwater resources, air quality, and stream health.  After we give these reports to the Board of Supervisors, we will launch into a second phase that looks at the socioeconomic issues in helping us better understand what the growth means for quality of life and our taxes.

34:13 – WHEELER: When do you expect the first phase to be done and the second phase to start?

34:19 – MARSHALL:  In the next few weeks.  All the remaining reports are in the works and we expect them to appear within weeks, and we will as soon as we can after that launch the second phase.  Simultaneously with the second phase we will have an outreach community dialogue… and we will be working with the Institute for Environmental Negotiation to take the results of these studies into the community.

County residents getting land use tax break are urged to send in revalidation forms as deadline looms

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, August 14, 2009

Albemarle County landowners with property in the land use taxation program have less than three weeks to file their new revalidation forms. As of today, less than half of the participants have returned their paperwork according to County Assessor Bob Willingham.

After September 1, 2009, the County will charge a $125 late fee to process the revalidation forms documenting that a property still qualifies for the program.  If a landowner has not returned the revalidation forms by December 5, 2009, they will face the possibility of being removed from the land use taxation program and subject to paying “roll back” taxes. In that scenario, the landowner would have to pay real estate property taxes at the fair market value for the previous five years.

Last October, the Board of Supervisors voted to require the revalidation process as a way of answering critics who charged the program was being abused by property owners who were not actually using their land for agricultural, open space, or forestry purposes. The County has never previously required participating landowners to revalidate their property. The program has been in place since 1973.

In an interview with Charlottesville Tomorrow, Willingham said he is not surprised that a majority of the program’s participants have not yet complied.

 “From my experience, it’s kind of typical that people receive a form from the government and don’t realize the importance of filing it,” Willingham said. “Some people forget it. Some people ignore it.”

If those people continue to ignore the program after the cut-off date, their property will be assessed in January 2010 at fair market rates. If they do not submit a reapplication to join the land use taxation program, their property will be subject to the roll-back taxes.

Approximately 68% of the County’s land is in land use taxation, according to Willingham. He said the County receives $19 million less in tax dollars then it would if the program was not in place. There are 4,927 parcels of land participating in the program.

Willingham predicts that as many as 10 percent of participants will not comply with revalidation and will be removed from the program.

High Growth Coalition meets in Culpeper to discuss new state regulations impacting land use and transportation

By Julia Glendening
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, July 3, 2009

The Virginia Coalition of High Growth Communities, is a membership association for local government officials from counties in Virginia with rapid residential development. Also known as the High Growth Coalition, the group met on June 29, 2009 in Culpeper to listen to speakers and discuss three major topics: the regulation of alternative onsite sewage systems; new stormwater management requirements; and VDOT’s secondary street requirements. The focus of the discussion was to examine how local governments will be influenced by changes in legislation approved by the General Assembly and speakers stressed how important it is for local officials to make their opinions heard.  Albemarle County is a member of the Coalition and was represented by Supervisors Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller), Ann Mallek (White Hall), and Mark Graham, the County’s Director of Community Development.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090629-coalition-high-growth-communities

Alternative Onsite Sewage Systems (AOSS)

According to the Code of Virginia (§ 32.1-163), a conventional onsite sewage system consists of one or more septic tanks flowing to a gravity distributed drainfield. An alternative onsite sewage system does not have the characteristics of a conventional system and does not flow to a point source discharge, such as a pipe.  An AOSS can treat sewage with a device other than a septic tank, such as a media filter, which uses other ways to separate the sewage, for example with peat, byproducts of coal, or foam cubes. Pressurized systems are also used instead of gravity to distribute the wastewater within a drainfield.

Earlier this year, the General Assembly passed two bills (HB 1788  and SB 1276) declaring that local governments cannot prohibit the use of alternative onsite sewage systems, both of which went into effect on July 1, 2009. Previously, a building permit could be withheld if the soil on site would not support a traditional septic system and public sewer was not available to the property.  In compliance with the interim requirements of the new legislation, alternative systems installed after July 1, 2009 will have to be operated and maintained by the most stringent policies declared by the manufacturer, the local government, or the state. These will be replaced by the Board of Health emergency regulations in April 6, 2010 and final regulations at the end of 2010.

In an interview with Charlottesville Tomorrow, Jeff McDaniel, local Environmental Health Manager for the Virginia Department of Health (VDH), said in 2008 about 74 alternative systems were approved in Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, Greene, and Nelson Counties. McDaniel said Albemarle did not prohibit the use of alternative systems prior to this year’s legislation and he thought the legislation would have more of an effect on other regions of Virginia.

Albemarle County's Mark Graham, told Charlottesville Tomorrow that, before the new legislation went into effect this week, alternative onsite sewage systems were allowed only when an existing conventional system had failed. Graham said a developer previously had to demonstrate a conventional system could be implemented in order to get a building plan approved. Under the new law, an alternative system could be specified up front and local government would not be able to deny a development right.

Supervisor Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) expressed concern about the potential for increased residential growth on previously undevelopable land in an update she gave to the Board of Supervisors at their July 1 meeting.

“We have regarded whether land [percolates for septic] or not as a land use control,” said Thomas. “Now that will no longer be a controlling factor.”

McDaniel noted that about 5 to 10% of building permits with conventional sewage systems have been denied in the past year due to various limiting factors, such as soil or location limitations.

“I see it [alternative systems] as a positive thing,” said McDaniel. “Conventional systems treat the sewage, but alternative systems clean the sewage to a different level. There are places where alternative systems can be used to better treat the effluent.”

He emphasized the importance of properly maintaining all types of sewage systems and said he saw the new maintenance regulations as a way to improve VDH’s existing procedures.

“I think we’re going to clarify some better maintenance and monitoring of not just alternative but conventional [systems],” said McDaniel.

Panelists at the Coalition meeting, however, discussed potential problems with the AOSS regulations. Trapper Davis, from the Coastal Plains Environmental Group, LLC, said he maintains these systems and was also concerned with the cost for residential clients, which is currently $400 for a year of maintenance. He said that may deter people from keeping their sewage systems properly maintained. Davis also said he believed industry professionals do not have enough knowledge about proper maintenance for AOSS and this could be a problem once the interim regulations go into effect.

Bob Lee, from the Loudoun County Health Department, said many homeowners are unaware their sewage system is an AOSS, which could create a problem for trying to identify systems for inspection. Lee also emphasized the importance of establishing quantitative performance standards.

Allen Knapp, from the Virginia Department of Health, said the frequency and cost of monitoring are major issues for the implementation of AOSS.

Stormwater Management Requirements

The state is currently changing storm water management regulations for construction, local programs, and permit fees in order to increase water quality standards, in compliance with EPA standards for the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) was created in 2004 with House Bill 1177, which authorized local authorities to implement stormwater management programs. The Soil and Water Conservation Board proposed amendments to parts I, II, III, and XIII of VSMP regulations on September 25, 2008. The amendments are still being discussed and there will be a 60-day public comment ending on August 21, 2009.

Ryan Brown, Policy and Planning Assistant Director for the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, described these amendments and said there will be a stricter phosphorous standard for new development from 0.45 lbs per acre per year to 0.28. The amendments also propose a decrease in nutrient levels for land redevelopment. Currently the standard is a 10% reduction to the predevelopment load and the amendments will require a 20% reduction in nutrients from the predevelopment load.

“This addresses new development and prevents us from making the situation worse,” said Brown.

Lisa Ochsenhirt, of Aqualaw, PLC, described the obligations for local governments in order to help clean up the Chesapeake Bay. She stated the three year milestone goal is to increase the pace of reduction by 86% for nitrogen and 52% for phosphorous during 2009-2011. She said this reduction would cost Virginia’s state government a projected $1.2 billion. Ochsenhirt stated the consequences would include a tightening of regulations and permits, an increase in reporting and auditing, and an increase in lawsuits by the EPA, state, or citizens. She warned the High Growth Coalition that the restrictions would hit the high growth communities the hardest.

Mike Flagg, Director of Public Works for Hanover County, said Hanover had calculated the expense to retrofit areas with stormwater treatment from 2005 data and determined it would cost $1,525 a person. Flagg also declared it would cost $500 or more per lot to maintain the nutrient regulations for stormwater, all of which could create more expensive growth areas.

“We may actually be promoting sprawl with some of these rules,” said Flagg.

Thomas also commented at the Board of Supervisors meeting on how the stormwater regulations will affect Albemarle County.

“Our main concern I think in this community is that if you regulate stormwater in the city or in the urban area more stringently you’re just going to squish development out into the rural area because it will be a lot less expensive in the rural area,” said Thomas.

VDOT Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements (SSAR)

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has developed Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements (SSAR), which will become mandatory July 1, 2009. The SSAR includes three goals: ensuring the connectivity of road and pedestrian networks; minimizing impervious surface area; and addressing performance bonding needs of new secondary streets. The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved the SSAR in February 2009 and a transition period was instated from March 9 to June 30.

Ted McCormack, the Director of Governmental Affairs for the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), outlined the requirements, which included a calculated interconnectivity index for each neighborhood. He stressed the importance of interconnectivity and said it would lead to less construction, increased pedestrian safety, a faster emergency vehicle response time, and a more efficient network overall. He said VDOT has determined that on average throughout Virginia, 10% of all trips are walking trips, demonstrating the lack of pedestrian accessibility.

Nick Donahue, Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Virginia, said VDOT has taken a position of not widening the right of way
to reduce congestion because they believe connectivity is a more successful solution.

“It’s much more cost effective for us to have connectivity so that people’s trips to school, the grocery store, etc. are on the local roads than it is for VDOT to widen the main roads,” said Donahue.

Donahue also answered questions about the impact a reduced state budget has had on VDOT. He said there have been cutbacks in many areas due to the decrease from $8.7 billion in revenue in FY2008 to $5.4 billion in FY2010.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST FROM JULY 1, 2009 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING

• 01:45 – Dennis Rooker asks about the Virginia Health Department’s view of alternative sewage systems
• 04:45 – David Slutzky discusses the possibility of a cap and trade program
• 06:45 – Rooker asks what local authority will regulate agricultural runoff
• 07:55 – Ann Mallek comments on other counties’ setback requirements

ASAP invites Farm Bureau to discussion on future of Albemarle's rural farms

Panelists (L to R) Ann Mallek, Stephen Levine (background), & Carl Tinder (foreground)

On June 18, 2009, Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP) held a panel discussion entitled: “The Future of Albemarle Farmland.” Carl Tinder, President of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, and Stephen Levine, an ASAP Board member, discussed their respective organization’s efforts to insure a healthy rural environment and the preservation of local farms. Albemarle County Supervisor Ann Mallek, served as moderator. An audience of about thirty people gathered at the Westminster Presbyterian Church to listen to the panelists answer questions they received in advance and to those from the audience.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090618-ASAP

QUESTIONS & TIMELINE FOR PODCAST
01:14 - Introduction by David Shreve

Moderated by Ann Mallek

10:49 - Question 1 - Much of the land in Albemarle County now in housing developments was farmland in past years. What is to stop this pattern from continuing in the future?

14:29 - Question 2 - Is the non-farming community justified in encouraging local government to enact regulations that will reduce the probability that developers and speculators will buy farmland and turn it into residential developments?

18:44 - Question 3 - Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP), because of the use of the word “population” in its name, has sometimes been identified as a “one trick pony.” That is, some mistakenly assume that population is its only concern, rather than an essential component in issues such as environmental degradation, traffic congestion, sprawl, resource depletion, strained infrastructure, and threat to our quality of life. What in your view is the connection between population size and these issues?

21:51 - Question 4 - What could be done to develop more common ground between ASAP and local Farm Bureau members? Are they aware of the existence of ASAP and why it is trying to stabilize local population at a sustainable level?

24:04 - Question 5 - Conservation easements are one tool for protecting rural land from excessive development. Other such tools include zoning, subdivision limits, growth boundaries, and the protection of prime agricultural land, forests, and wildlife habitat. Given that U.S. and Virginia courts have consistently decided that these tools violate no property rights, how does this indicate that we (everyone involved) could begin to use these tools in a more robust and effective manner?

28:44 - Question 6 - Does your organization support TDRs? Why or why not?

32:34 - Question 7 - Since much of the appreciated value of rural land is related directly to ongoing public investments in the nearby urban and suburban region, does this not make land use in these affected rural areas a necessary focus of public policy?

43:19 - Question 8 - In the past five decades, traditional methods of farming have increasingly given way to large scale, industrial farming, resulting in significant soil erosion, lowering of aquifers, widespread pollution of soil, air, and water (with pesticides, fertilizer, and hormones), and the excessive use of antibiotics demanded by the crowded, unnatural, and stressful conditions that characterize factory farming--agricultural practices that surely threaten the very sustainability of agriculture itself, as well as the health of the American people. What can your organization do to address these problems and to promote more sustainable and environmentally healthy methods of food production?

49:30 - Question 9 - Critics of the USDA claim that its policies are designed to favor large industrial farming operations at the expense of traditional family farms, making it very difficult for such farms to support their   families and discouraging people who would like to become farmers from pursuing such a career. What can be done to make family farming as it existed up to the 1950s a more viable option than it presently is and ensure that farming remains, or becomes anew, a viable career in this county?

53:14 - Question 10 - There is a move about to provide a permanent home for Charlottesville’s farmers’ market that could function year-round, as well as other initiatives for moving agricultural products more directly from farmer to consumer. How important do you think it is to local farmers to provide these new avenues for selling agricultural products? The ACE program attempts to compensate farmers for voluntarily giving up development rights -- rights they say they will not use in any case.  Why don’t more farmers take advantage of the ACE program?

Audience Questions:

1:01:25 - Question on not supporting county funding of food hubs

1:03:49 - Question on how the Farm Bureau can help the small farmer

1:05:29 - Question on how industrial farms are defined

1:09:18 - Question on farms near the Gulf of Mexico

1:11:04 - Comments on rural area development and a consumer-driven market

1:17:09 - Comment on real estate revenue for farms

1:20:00 - Question on property taxes are on value of farm

1:24:54 - Question on which state has a better tax system

1:26:19 - Comment on the term industrial farm and the future of local farming

1:31:37 - Question on next generation of farmers

1:35:59 - Comment on farming lifestyle

1:40:04 - Question on large corporations affecting local farmers

1:44:24 - Discussion on property tax in California

1:52:26 - Mallek concludes