HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal PC Minutes w Resolution attach 09302025ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 1
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Final Minutes Regular Meeting
September 30, 2025
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public meeting on Tuesday,
September 30, 2025, at 6:00 p.m.
Members attending were Fred Missel, Chair; Luis Carrazana, Vice-Chair; Julian Bivins;
Karen Firehock; Nathan Moore; and Lonnie Murray.
Members absent Corey Clayborne.
Other officials present were Michael Barnes, Director of Planning; Tonya Swartzendruber,
Planning Manager; Ben Holt, Senior Planner II; Jenny Tevendale, Senior Assistant
County Attorney; and Carolyn Shaffer, Clerk to the Planning Commission.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum
Ms. Shaffer called the roll.
Mr. Missel established a quorum.
Public Comment on matters pending before the Commission, but not listed
or a Public Hearing on this agenda
There were none.
Consent Agenda
Mr. Bivins motioned that the Planning Commission adopt the Consent Agenda as
presented. Mr. Carrazana seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (6-0). (Mr.
Clayborne was absent.)
Public Hearing
CPA2021-02 AC44 Comp Plan Update – Final Document Recommendation
Mr. Missel said that the AC44 update had been ongoing for the past four years, which
had included a lot of public input, and the Planning Commission had received additional
public comments in advance of tonight's public hearing. He said that staff had done a
great job of summarizing that information in a separate document. He said that in addition
to that, the public hearing would provide opportunity for sharing comments tonight. He
said that he would like for the Commissioners to take note of public commen ts that they
felt were most important to consider as part of any recommended amendments for the
Comp Plan. He said that then they could review the Commissioners' suggested
amendments and ensure they could provide them as clear recommendations to the Board
of Supervisors. He said that he would stress brevity but completeness as they did that.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
Ben Holt, Senior Planner II with the Long-Range Planning Division, said that staff would
keep the presentation brief to allow plenty of time for public comment and for the
Commissioners to share their feedback as well. He said that he would review the
upcoming schedule, the project phases, major points of emphasis in AC44 and some of
the differences between this plan and the 2015 plan. He said that he would then review
some of the notable changes made to the draft document, followed by some details of
plan implementation before they opened their discussion period.
Mr. Holt said that in terms of the schedule, they began this current Phase 4 with an initial
draft document that was published in August, shortly followed by an open house to
community members that was held on August 21, 2025. He said that they went into t heir
work sessions to review this draft document with both the Planning Commission and the
Board. He said that they met with the Planning Commission on August 26, 2025, and then
took it to the Board on September 10, 2025. He said that they did not finish t heir work
session discussion with the Board, so they were holding an additional work session on
October 1, 2025, to continue that discussion.
Mr. Holt said that after that there would be the public hearings, beginning with the
Planning Commission hearing tonight. He said that the public hearing before the Board
of Supervisors would be held on October 15, 2025, which was their anticipated adoption
date. He said that he would also like to note that the effective date of this Comprehensive
Plan would be January 1, 2026, which he would discuss in more detail later.
Mr. Holt said that now, he would review the four project phases. He said that in Phase 1,
they began with public engagement to acquire community priorities for the plan and
establish a vision for AC44. He said that the community vision was captured in their AC44
framework, which included the four guiding principles, which were created to provide
direction for the rest of the project, as well as the plan content. He said that also in Phase
1, they reviewed their existing Growth Management Policy to ascertain what aspects were
needed to provide updated guidance for both the Development Areas and the Rural Areas
of the County. He said that they also completed their 2022 Land Use Buildout Analysis to
establish a baseline for growth capacity within the Developmen t Areas.
Mr. Holt said that in Phase 2, they drafted goals and objectives for each topic chapter and
developed their planning toolkits to provide coordinated guidance on land use and
transportation planning. He said that the toolkits, in turn, produced their activity centers.
He said that in Phase 3, they drafted actions to support topic goals and objectives, and
they also developed their Big Moves to guide plan implementation.
Mr. Holt said that now, in Phase 4, they were drafting and refining the plan document as
they approached adoption of AC44. He said that they also recently completed the 2025
Buildout Analysis that would be incorporated into the plan appendix. He said that this
phase would conclude with the public hearings to review and adopt the final plan
document.
Mr. Holt said that throughout the entire project, public engagement had been a critical
component of AC44. He said that they had had more than 40,000 visitors to their AC44
website, and throughout the four phases, more than 2,700 people had participated in
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 3
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
AC44 engagement in the form of online surveys, email comments, chat kit discussions,
and attendance through either in-person or virtual events.
Mr. Holt said that getting back to the plan itself, some of the notable points of emphasis
for AC44 included integrating Board priorities of equity and climate action throughout the
plan document, conducting the two Buildout Analyses to inform their Development Areas
utilization. He said that they had further emphasized increasing density and multimodal
transportation planning within the Development Areas.
Mr. Holt said that furthermore, they had updated their plan for activity centers by reducing
the previous total number of centers and had better defined the location of those identified
centers, so they were not just a letter "C" on a map. He said that they had also
consolidated the land use categories that previously had more than 20 categories and
now were reduced to 12 categories within the Development Areas. He said that they also
incorporated other County plans, including Housing Albemarle, the Economic
Development Strategic Plan, and the Climate Action Plan.
Mr. Holt said that AC44 also identified Big Moves to guide implementation efforts. He said
that he would also like to note that staff had organized the plan content into a four -part
document that they hoped was easier to navigate and use. He said that the overall length
of the plan had been reduced to 278 pages in comparison to the previous 406 pages in
the 2015 plan, excluding the appendices.
Mr. Holt said that included in the Commission's attachments was a summary of document
changes that captured the full list of edits that were made to this latest draft. He said that
some of those more notable updates include editing the entire document for consistency
and tone, updating the Land Use Buildout Analysis data narrative throughout, and
clarification of the criteria for assessing the adequacy of land in the Development Areas
in part two.
Mr. Holt said that within the Development Areas chapter, they had added more future land
use maps showing enlarged areas of the various neighborhoods within the Development
Areas. He said that this provided a higher level of detail in those future land use maps.
He said that they also removed rural interstate interchanges within the Rural Area Land
Use Chapter, and they added an action to address childcare within the Thriving Economy
Chapter.
Mr. Holt said that they had added actions to promote awareness of affordable housing
options and supporting aging in place and housing, updated the existing parks and
facilities table to include equestrian and biking trails , and whether a park was accessible
by transit. He said that in the Cultural Resources Chapter, they added a call-out box to
clarify what historic resources were. He said that for the Big Moves, they had revised Big
Move #7 to strengthen social connection and community well-being in the Implementation
Chapter.
Mr. Holt said that looking ahead, staff had begun work on an implementation plan to guide
AC44 efforts after plan adoption. He said that once adopted, the proposed effective date
for AC44 was January 1, 2026. He said that this delayed effective date was in tended to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 4
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
allow time for staff, partner agencies, applicants, and other plan users to get accustomed
to AC44 and its requirements, while staff conducted plan education. He said that staff's
implementation plan would also include a revised process for future Comprehensive Plan
amendment applications.
Mr. Holt said that they would also reinforce the connection between AC44 and the Board's
strategic plan to better align implementation policy and funding. He said that staff would
also further refine their process for small area plans, including those acti vity centers and
incorporating multimodal transportation plans. He said that AC44 would also continue to
inform the Zoning Ordinance modernization project as their county code was updated and
rewritten.
Mr. Holt said that finally, they would further develop metrics and tracking processes to
evaluate and report on plan implementation progress. He said that to preview the format
of tonight's discussion, after they heard from the public, staff would like to hear from the
Commissioners about any specific edits that they had to suggest. He said that staff also
had a motion to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, should
the Commission wish to forward this to the Board with the recommendation of approval.
Mr. Bivins asked if staff could elaborate on the citizen initiative for updates or
modifications to the Comp Plan after adoption. He asked how citizens would bring forward
suggestions after the plan was adopted.
Mr. Barnes said that he recalled about 10 years ago when he was working with the
County, staff made a decision and worked with the Board to remove citizen -initiated
Comprehensive Plan amendments. He said that it used to be part of the process but was
removed due to workload issues and other reasons. He said that staff recognized that
with the opportunities for amendments to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) being set
with the master plans for each area of the County, it may not be frequent enough to meet
existing conditions and changes in the market. He said that staff was committed to
bringing back a citizen-initiated Comprehensive Plan process; however, they only had
general ideas at this time and would need to work through the details. He said that it was
identified by staff as a priority for that future work, which they believed would be better to
do sooner rather than later.
Mr. Murray said that on page 25, Action 7.1 was removed. He asked if staff could explain
what led to that action being removed. He said that the reference of "encourage donations
to Albemarle County Parks Foundation" was removed there as well as in Action 7.3.
Mr. Holt said that he believed that was in response to the Board's feedback. He said that
they did not want to confine donations to any one group or organization; therefore, they
did not want to specify a specific group to submit donations.
Mr. Barnes said that it would not necessarily exclude the possibility of the funds going to
the Parks Foundation, but the Board simply did not want to name one specific body when
it could potentially benefit multiple bodies.
Mr. Murray said that he appreciated the clarification.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 5
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
Mr. Missel opened the public hearing.
Neil Williamson, President of the Free Enterprise Forum, said that he was disappointed
but not surprised. He said that tonight, they would likely advance AC44, a plan that was
described as "comprehensive," but in reality, it was a plan for the status quo. He said that
the plan would result in further gentrification and less housing affordability across
Albemarle County. He said that Virginia state law mandated that all local governments
adopt a Comprehensive Plan to guide future development and ensure order ly growth as
outlined in the Code of Virginia.
Mr. Williamson said that by evaluating AC44 against this code criteria, it was clear that
this plan was a huge, missed opportunity. He said that a failure of this magnitude had
many contributors. He said that the Board of Supervisors, who at the outset, prior to
hearing from the community, determined that Development Areas would not be altered,
bore significant responsibility. He said that the Planning Commission, who were charged
by state code to develop this plan, chose to stick with a binary choice of Development
Area versus Rural Area, rather than considering a more nuanced approach such as the
"lasagna model."
Mr. Williamson said that the Planning staff, who at the outset determined that none of the
Comprehensive Plan designations would be altered beyond simply consolidating those in
the 2015 plan, also failed to consider alternative options. He said that the AC 44 public
volunteer planners, including himself, were effectively silenced by being broken into
discrete groups and having their input eliminated.
Mr. Williamson said that this concern was not a surprise to the Commission, as the Free
Enterprise Forum had spoken and written about the plan's pitfalls since its inception. He
said that they had supported and promoted the "lasagna model" repeatedly throu ghout
this process. He said that the Economic Development Strategic Plan called out many of
these same problems. He said that with numerous warnings and over three years of public
comment, the plan still failed to alter the status quo; it felt like rearran ging the deck chairs
on the Titanic.
Mr. Williamson said that considering that this plan was delivered behind schedule and
Comprehensive Plans were supposed to be reviewed every five years, he should perhaps
take solace that the County was likely hiring planners now to work on AC49. He said that
maybe next time, the "Comprehensive Plan" could consider the future instead of
perpetuating the status quo. He said that however, he knew which way he was betting.
Rob McGinnis, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC), said that he
would like to extend his thanks to the Planning Commission and staff, as well as the
Board, but particularly the Planning Commission, for their significant contributions to t he
AC44 process over the past four years. He said that it had been a long and challenging
process. He said that although the Piedmont Environmental Council supported many
aspects of the latest draft of the Comprehensive Plan update, they had a remaining ma jor
concern regarding the proposed process for swapping land between Development Areas
and Rural Areas.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 6
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
Mr. McGinnis said that he had submitted detailed comments previously, so he would not
delve into those specifics, but he did want to reiterate that the process for assessing future
land swaps should be more effectively addressed when developing Development Area
neighborhood master plans, which would be updated and adopted into the
Comprehensive Plans. He said that also, there was potential for land swaps to be
addressed as part of the process for preparing the proposed Rural Area Land Use Plan.
Mr. McGinnis said that in addition, PEC strongly supported the revised transfer
development rights program Action 2.4. He said that PEC also strongly supported the
removal of information on sending and receiving zones. He said that furthermore, PEC
strongly supported the removal of the narrative text and the related action item regarding
the small area plans for Yancey Mills and Shadwell interstate interchanges. He said that
land uses at rural interchanges could be addressed as part of the process to prepar e the
proposed Rural Area Land Use Plan.
Christine Putnam, Scottsville District, said that she was a member of the Natural Heritage
Committee (NHC), which was charged by the Board of Supervisors to advise on matters
related to natural resource and biodiversity protection. She said that she would like to first
congratulate and extend her gratitude to the Planning Commission and the AC44 team
for the work that went into developing the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Putnam said that the NHC was able to provide feedback, and they had been pleased
to see this feedback reflected in the final draft. She said that at their last NHC meeting,
they discussed one important addition to the Environmental Stewardship Chapter that
they hoped the Commission might consider. She said that it was a sensible and
achievable step to Section 4.4, which would require the County to use locally native trees
and shrubs for at least 80% of plantings on County-owned land.
Ms. Putnam said that this recommendation came from the Biodiversity Action Plan, which
some County departments were already following. She said that native plants provided
the foundation for a healthy ecosystem and were key to protecting biodiversity, whic h they
could see just outside this building. She said that Albemarle County had been a leader in
this area, with native plant demonstration beds at both the McIntire and Fifth Street
County Office Buildings.
Ms. Putnam said that they also hosted a website and had a native plant database. She
said that she was also part of the steering committee for the Plant Virginia Natives
Northern Piedmont Region, which involved many other Counties, and therefore they were
positioned as a leader in this area. She said that she had brought a copy of the plant
guide today to share with the Commission, which included photos and references to the
County Office Building demonstration sites.
Doug Holiday said that he was joined by his friend and partner Dick Payne, and together
they owned Sweetspot of Albemarle LLC in the Samuel Miller District. He said that they
were addressing parcel 7548, which was located southwest of the interchange of
Interstate 64 and Route 29. He said that it bordered the Sieg property to the east and the
future Hedgerow Park land to the west. He said that they were present to request the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 7
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
Commission to consider recommending a change to the parcel's designation from
industrial to community mixed use on the AC44 Future Land Use Map.
Mr. Holiday said that they believed this change was consistent with the County's vision of
having land that supported a variety of desired uses that were more appropriate for this
area than the uses supported by the current industrial designation. He said that to provide
some background, in 2015, Deschutes Brewery of Bend, Oregon, had an interest in
purchasing their property to build an east coast brewery. He said that at the time, there
was a shortage of industrial land in the County, and the land map requ ired a change of
their property designation.
Mr. Holiday said that they agreed to the County's request to change it to an industrial
designation on the land use map; however, as events unfolded, Deschutes did not pursue
the property, but their parcel was still designated industrial use on the Compreh ensive
Plan map. He said that for the last 10 years, there had not been any interest in their land
for industrial purposes. He said that however, there had been interest in developing the
property for other uses.
Mr. Holiday said that their parcel was part of the Sieg rezoning application for two years,
during which the Sieg property developer recognized that a mixed -use plan was
appropriate for the property but ultimately decided not to purchase it. He said that g iven
the shortage of available and developable land in the remaining Development Area,
interest in this property for uses other than heavy industrial continued. He said that with
this background, he would like to introduce his partner, Dick Payne.
Dick Payne said that he would like to briefly summarize the reasons they believed the
Future Land Use Map change made sense. He said that they wanted to emphasize that
they were not asking for a zoning change, only a change in the future land use map. He
said that this change from industrial to community mixed use made sense for the following
reasons.
Mr. Payne said that first, while he would not go into further detail on what Mr. Holiday
mentioned, but the industrial designation appeared to be outdated. He said that second,
the industrial land supply had increased since 2015 when their land was put int o the
Comprehensive Plan and designated industrial. He said that as they all knew, North Fork
now had a 14-acre pad-ready site within the 300-acre zone plan development industrial
park, and Rivanna Futures has 172 acres zoned light industrial.
Mr. Payne said that the Sweetspot site was not competitive with these industrially zoned
properties, where it was easier to develop with ready access to roads and utilities. He
said that third, there was a community benefit to community mixed use – it supported a
wide variety of desired uses, including commercial, office, retail, light industrial, research
& development (R&D), residential, institutional, and everything but heavy industrial, which
it was currently designated for.
Mr. Payne said that fourth, their property was compatible with the Sieg property, which
was designated for community mixed use in the FLUM, and its rezoning application
proposed a community mixed use development design. He said that designating the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 8
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
Sweetspot parcel for community mixed use would align with the adjacent land uses. He
said that there were also location advantages to a designation change. He said that
community mixed use was more appropriate than industrial at the edge of the
Development Area, and it was also adjacent to the future Hedgerow Park, where potential
pedestrian connections with future zoning were possible.
Mr. Payne said that there was also an opportunity to integrate with Sieg's sidewalk and
trail network, shops, and employment centers. He said that fifth, there would be flexibility
to develop land more sensitively. He said that community mixed use supporte d a future
rezoning application for mixed use development with smaller building footprints compared
to many heavy industrial uses that required a large flat pad site for a single -story facility,
allowing more flexibility around steep slopes and other sensi tive areas. He said that
finally, it supported a future rezoning application for compatible mixed -use development
within the development area that supported a more diversified tax base.
Carol Courtenay, Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), said that the SELC
appreciated the substantial amount of work that has been undertaken by the Commission
and County staff over the last few years to get to this point. She said that there had been
significant improvements since the plan's first drafts were released for review, including
one change she wanted to speak in support of tonight: a standalone chapter on the
County's Growth Management Policy.
Ms. Courtenay said that the County had long been looked to as a model statewide for
adopting a growth policy that supported more livable and equitable communities,
promoted economic development, encouraged rural enterprise, and protected the
environment. She said that a strong Growth Management Policy also delivered significant
fiscal benefits to the County and its residents by making it easier and less expensive to
provide public infrastructure and effective public services like transit, emergency services,
and schools.
Ms. Courtney said that additionally, it protected the County's invaluable natural areas,
which safeguarded the quality of their drinking water, drove economic growth and tourism,
and helped the County meet its climate goals. She said that ultimately, the p rinciples of
responsible growth underpinned almost every issue in the Comprehensive Plan. She said
that the SELC strongly supported the County's decision to have a standalone growth
management chapter to emphasize the foundational nature of this policy in the County's
long-term planning.
Ms. Courtenay said that as part of the Comprehensive Plan update, the Board found that
an expansion of the Development Areas was not needed at this time. She said that this
aligned with the findings of the 2022 Land Use Buildout Analysis and the recent 202 5
update, both of which showed significant capacity remaining in their Development Areas,
enough to accommodate projected growth over at least the next 20 years. She said that
because premature expansion of the Development Areas would undermine the County's
Growth Policy, they remained concerned about the inclusion of criteria for Development
Area boundary revisions in the Comprehensive Plan.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 9
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
Ms. Courtenay said that such criteria should instead be developed through a separate
planning process in order to give appropriate attention to them and allow for adequate
public input. She said that if the criteria were retained in the update, they urged the
Commission to consider modifying the title on page 12 of that chapter to make clear that
these were simply the initial criteria for assessing underperforming areas in the
Development Areas for removal.
Ms. Courtenay said that they also recommended making changes to the title of the table
on page 13, so it read that it was the initial criteria for assessing the adequacy of land in
the Development Areas. She said that these small changes would emphasize, as the
Comp Plan already stated on page 11 of that chapter, that these criteria were simply the
starting point for any revisions to the boundaries.
Mr. Missel closed the public hearing and the matter rested with the Commission.
Mr. Missel said that he believed they had not received any additional comments verbally
here this evening that were in addition to what they received via email.
Ms. Firehock said that if there were emails today, she was out in the field.
Mr. Missel said that that was no problem. He said that they could go through the
previously received comments methodically, and there was always time for follow -up as
well.
Mr. Barnes said that to clarify, they had been receiving emails from interested parties for
several days, and staff had collected those into a single document that the Commission
could address today.
Ms. Firehock said that she had read all the emails she received before 7:00 a.m. today.
Mr. Missel said that there were some additional emails that came in, and that was part of
the challenge they had with trying to corral all of these and acknowledge the relatively
short timeline to turn it around for the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Bivins said that he wanted to state upfront that he was going to be resistant to this
process at this time because he was disappointed that they would give people who sent
last-minute emails the same opportunity to make changes to this document as those who
had been involved throughout the process. He said that there were some ideas that had
been set aside for various reasons, while others had been conclusively decided upon by
the Supervisors, so it was not the Commission's role to reevaluate them.
Mr. Bivins said that an example of the latter was the potential expansion of the
Development Areas. He said that he did not want the Commission to wordsmith this very
detailed document at the last moment solely based on emails they received last night. He
said that he did not feel comfortable considering these newly received recommendations
from the public without allowing staff to have sufficient time to review them and determine
if they were appropriate or feasible.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 10
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
Mr. Missel said that he shared some of Mr. Bivins' concerns. He said that however, he
was looking at all of these comments received ahead of this public hearing in a similar
manner as the other public hearings the Commission heard, meaning that ultimately the
Commission would consider them and send their recommendations or relevant comments
to the Board of Supervisors. He said that the community had had the opportunity to
provide feedback throughout the past four years of developing the AC44 document, likel y
much more than other developments would receive in this process.
Mr. Missel said that he felt the Commission was tasked to review the public comments
that came in ahead of the public hearing, which was the whole purpose of the public
hearing. He said that he felt it was only fair to acknowledge these comments had been
received as part of this process and would be forwarded to the Board for their review as
well. He said that, however, he did see some of these comments and wondered why
people had waited until this moment to say them; why not a year or two years ago? He
said that these were his thoughts on the matter, and the Commission was free to discuss
it further.
Ms. Firehock said that she did not necessarily disagree with what they both said, however,
she would say that the comments from the Southern Environmental Law Center about
the criteria for evaluating the growth area expansion was not something that was clearly
developed a year ago and it had not been something they had been grappling w ith it all
along. She said that her response to them would be that when she read that, she
interpreted it as initial ideas rather than being the specific criteria.
Ms. Firehock said that it looked to her like they were just some first thoughts, and she
thought it would require a very specific process to develop those criteria into something
robust, like what was in the Portland metro region, for example, which she ha d already
forwarded to staff two years ago. She said that she thought that would be a complicated
process, and she agreed that it would be necessary to develop that as a separate
process. She said that worded in the Comprehensive Plan now was not a fully f ormed set
of criteria. She said that she saw it as vague, but that was because it was not fully fleshed
out in the AC44 process.
Ms. Firehock said that she was comfortable with the level of detail that was in there and
she did not see that section as something they would take and use to start making
significant changes to the growth area boundaries. She said that she thought it would
need further fleshing out, but she was comfortable with the level of detail that was in there.
Mr. Missel said that he thought that was exactly the kind of conversation they should be
having, because that was addressing one of the public comments and that comment
would still go to the Board. He said that the Board would be able to then determine
whether or not they felt the same way.
Mr. Bivins said that he thought the key point here was that the Planning Commission was
not the initiator of that issue. He said that according to what the Board had said, they
would be the ones to ask the Commission and staff to look into that issue, and the
Planning Commission would not initiate that process.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 11
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
Ms. Firehock said that it could be if they wanted it to be.
Mr. Murray said that he would like to address that section as well. He said that as it
currently stood, reading it at face value, particularly the page about properties being
removed from the Development Area and moved to the Rural Area, it was so vague th at
a majority of their Development Area currently could meet that criteria. He said that he
saw that as very problematic.
Mr. Murray said that there were some factors he thought they really needed to consider
with regard to taking properties in the Development Area and moving them to the Rural
Area. He said that these may include factors such as whether the property was alrea dy
developed; if the property being removed from the development area already have water
and sewer, and if not, would they deny future connections even if it was in the jurisdictional
area; what percentage of tree or native cover the property had currently ; what percentage
of the site had been graded; and what percentage of the site was impervious surface,
including lawn.
Mr. Murray said that most Rural Area properties were downzoned in 1980 to form the
Rural Area. He asked if any property removed from the Development Area would also be
downzoned to match the surrounding Rural Area, or would they just create a non -
conforming area? He said that additionally, they should consider how suitable was the
property for Rural Area uses, such as agriculture, forestry, or conservation. He said that
perhaps they should zone the property to clearly indicate its intended use as A -1
Agricultural, C-1 Conservation, et cetera.
Mr. Murray said that the development area did not have protections on intermittent
streams, except for water supply areas. He asked if they should disqualify properties for
removal from the development area if they had already buried their intermittent str eams.
He said that the Rural Area did not have managed slopes, so he wondered if all managed
slopes would then become preserved. He asked what the outcome would be if they had
already been built on or otherwise impaired their managed slopes. He asked if th e
removal from the development area would be voluntary with permission of the owners of
parcels affected.
Mr. Murray asked how they would be compensated for the significant reduction of their
property value. He asked whether the County would be willing to go to court to defend
another downzoning. He said that typically, Rural Areas could expect a lower level o f
service, so he would like to know which ways services would be reduced for this property
being removed. He asked if there would be no more sidewalks or road improvements. He
asked what happened to places with Comp Plan designation for greenways and open
space, and if they would lose that designation.
Mr. Murray said that his point was that there were a lot of factors at play that were not
being discussed here. He said that he thought it needed a lot of work. He said that while
he would propose moving this off to another process, if it was to remain, he had submitted
some suggested language that they could review. He said that he thought it merited a lot
more discussion than it was getting.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 12
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
Mr. Moore said that they knew that they were getting close to filling up the Development
Area that they had. He said that it was not full per se, but eventually they would fill it up.
He said that it was just 5% of the County's land. He said that he felt like they should be
starting these conversations now about where to expand the Development Area. He said
that it felt unwise that they refused to address it ahead of time.
Mr. Moore said that recently, people had brought up the idea of swapping land from the
Rural Area to the Development Area, but he would make a pitch and suggest that they
start with the designated Development Areas from around 1979. He said that he would
be in favor of starting with that as their baseline. He said that it would be a good starting
point for how much acreage to move into the Development Areas. He said that back then
they had 10% of their land as Development Areas, so he thought they could tak e those
acreages and move them closer to today's Development Area in a way that would make
sense, given build-out patterns and water availability and all that.
Mr. Moore said that regarding the idea of some little, small pocket neighborhoods being
switched over, he thought they should start with where they started and the swap, they
got no swap out of. He said that they should start with that and swap it into the
Development Area so they could actually grow in a way that was manageable and
sustainable, and so people could afford to live there.
Mr. Missel said that he would suggest a way to approach this, because this was a subject
that was kind of front and center. He said that it was one of the main subjects that had
come out here and it was also something they could talk about for a whole day. He said
that they had talked about it a lot in previous meetings as well. He said that he would
suggest maybe looking at GMP 11, where there was a process laid out.
Mr. Missel said that this section was sort of addressing what they had been talking about
in terms of the land swaps, potentially having this be part of a more focused study,
substantial public engagement, and it specifically mentioned that the need for a
Development Area boundary revision would be identified by a future land planning effort.
Mr. Missel said that it stated the Board of Supervisors could pursue a boundary revision
independently of a future area land planning effort and should request that the County
Executive direct County staff to develop a Development Areas report, and that re port
would evaluate a variety of factors, provide information through maps, order of magnitude,
cost estimates, and other resources as necessary. He said that then it listed the criteria
on the following page, which were meant to provide a starting point f or consideration of
potential revisions.
Ms. Firehock said that that was the way she read it. She said that the listed criteria were
some things to consider in the future when they went through this in a more detailed and
much more factual and statistically based process than an emotionally based process.
Mr. Bivins said that if there was a way instead of an addendum or some point like that to
make a suggestion to the Board that they begin that process as soon as possible, he
thought that would be helpful.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 13
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
Ms. Firehock said that yes; people wanted clarity and investors wanted expectations
about what was intended.
Mr. Bivins said that the criteria on the following page was starting to allow for a full breadth
of considerations to be discussed, but for today, he thought the language was acceptable
without any amendments.
Mr. Missel said that he agreed with much of what Mr. Murray had said, but he also thought
that what was written was sufficient in terms of coverage that provided the ability to look
in more detail at these areas that were essentially planned and had these initial criteria.
He asked if there was consensus from the Commission on that point. He asked if Mr.
Murray felt that the language could be changed to reflect the comments they were making
about that section.
Mr. Murray said that he absolutely thought so. He said that on page 12, he thought there
needed to be more criteria.
Mr. Missel said that it was the starting point for additional criteria.
Mr. Murray said that even as a starting point, he thought the first bullet point should be
removed outright because it did not make any sense. He said that he would propose that
they replace that section with "locations where Rural Area designation would p rovide a
tangible conservation benefit, including protection of intermittent streams, enhanced
protection of critical slopes, or important environmental features or habitats designated in
the biodiversity action plan otherwise subject to high-density development."
Mr. Murray said that it could also include "areas with designated green systems where
the Rural Area designation would facilitate protection and public access." He said that he
thought that this would simply help frame why they would do the swapping proces s. He
said that also, agricultural properties were noted as being more consistent with Rural Area
uses; however, there were some farms that were in the Development Area now that he
did not foresee being developed in any kind of residential use.
Mr. Murray said that he would also suggest that locations with significant topographic or
environmental constraints which reduced an area's potential to meet development
recommended densities and intensities of use and the ability to provide an interconnec ted
street network, locations with limited public infrastructure and access capacity, including
existing road conditions and capacity where development was contrary to Virginia's
Department of Transportation goals and recommendations, connections to existing public
roads, water, sewer, and infrastructure would be challenging, locations with existing water
and sewer access would be disqualified absent additional factors that made them more
suitable for rural uses.
Mr. Murray said that furthermore, current uses and densities should be consistent with
neighboring Rural Area properties and not result in non -conforming uses or uses
inconsistent with the goals and recommendations for the Rural Area. He said that he
thought this was important, so they were not just taking an already developed area and
then just moving it to the Rural Area and just changing the color and the map. He said
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 14
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
that locations must have limited impervious surfaces and limited grading, which would
otherwise prevent the County from serving Rural Area uses like agricultural, forestry,
recreation, and conservation.
Mr. Murray said that it must be contiguous with the Rural Area and would be downzoned
to match neighboring Rural Area properties and Rural Area zoning. He said that he
thought these were some great criteria to get them thinking about ways to do this process
responsibly, and to take into account some of the factors that he mentioned.
Mr. Moore said that at this particular meeting they should not be wordsmithing everything,
so he would not support any of those suggested changes. He said that at the most, he
would support putting the word "potential" in the title so that it would read "p otential
criteria."
Ms. Firehock said that she had just made the same comment to Mr. Barnes. She said
that the word "potential" would be an improvement.
Mr. Missel said that he had been thinking about something different, but that was fine,
too. He said that he was going to say, "criteria for removing underperforming areas from
Development Areas include but are not limited to the following."
Mr. Bivins said that he would prefer that.
Mr. Murray asked if they could strike the first bullet point.
Mr. Moore said that he thought "included but not limited to" served the purpose of what
he had suggested.
Mr. Murray said that if they did nothing else, he thought it would be beneficial to strike
bullet point one because the way it was currently written implied that they had failed to
meet their goals for sidewalks and density, and as a result, they were goin g to abandon
it and move it to the Rural Area. He said that it seemed counterintuitive, as it seemed to
suggest that areas where they should be investing in more were being given up on.
Mr. Murray said that he did not fully understand that approach. He said that for example,
in Crozet, they had been trying to develop a sidewalk next to Crozet Park for a long time.
He asked if that meant that they should redesignate that area as Rural Area because it
had remained undeveloped for so long.
Mr. Missel said that he understood what Mr. Murray was saying, but he thought he was
getting too deep in the weeds. He said that the risk of his approach was that with putting
all the criteria out there right now was that they may inadvertently miss someth ing. He
said that if they used the wording "included but not limited to" or something to that effect,
it acknowledged that some of the listed criteria may not apply. He said that in that regard,
the first bullet point may not apply. He said that this would be his suggestion, but he
welcomed feedback from his colleagues.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 15
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
Mr. Carrazana said that this was an imperfect process and an imperfect document; he
thought they could all agree on that. He said that nevertheless, there was a lot of good
content included in here. He said that this section, in particular, was problematic and he
thought they were all wrestling with that here today. He said that it was a relatively new
section as well, and they had not been discussing it for the entire four years of this
Comprehensive Plan update. He said that now it was an opportunity for them to make
some adjustments as they recommended it for the Board.
Mr. Carrazana said that he thought there were a couple of tweaks that they could send
along that he thought would improve it. He said that he agreed with the comments that
had been made on this section, and he would be in support of the Chair's
recommendation because it put it in a way that they were signaling to the Board that this
was a section that they needed to pay attention to. He said that they were signaling that
they did not think that these criteria were necessarily hitting the mark, so they neede d to
spend time evaluating and coming up with a better set of criteria for this section. He said
that he would be in support of the amendments and edits that the Chair had
recommended.
Mr. Bivins said that he would posit, as they looked at this, what were the factors versus
criteria? He said that he brought this up because the factors allowed for the kinds of things
that Mr. Murray was trying to move forward – they could be integrated into the factors. He
said that he thought the factors were something that should be open for a deeper
discussion and to drive down into an explicit explanation of, for instance, the potential
impacts on opportunities for nearby adjacent properties.
Mr. Bivins said that if they were to move something, they should think about how would it
impact the zoning, such as whether it should be downzoned. He said that he believed the
things Mr. Murray mentioned there could be very strong and important parts of the factors.
He said that therefore, he was trying to delineate between what was a factor and what
was a criteria.
Ms. Firehock said that she thought criteria were rules that should be applied, while factors
were the many things that should be considered in deliberations.
Mr. Bivins said that he thought there were very few places in this document where they
were that prescriptive. He said that when it came to zoning, they could be as prescriptive
as they wanted to be, but here, it was a higher level that was meant to provid e
opportunities to be prescriptive when it was analyzed further.
Mr. Missel asked if Mr. Bivins had a recommended wording change that would help.
Mr. Bivins said that he was somewhat trying to ensure that the record reflected the fact
that there had been a conversation about the difference between factors and criteria.
Ms. Firehock said that she would be comfortable with simply adding "potential" before the
word "criteria." She said that if they wanted, they could add a sentence at the bottom to
clarify that these were things they should consider in the future to develop these criteria.
She said that from her perspective, she felt like she would need at least a half -day
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 16
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
workshop to create the criteria Mr. Murray was suggesting, so she was not ready tonight
to come up with the criteria and put them in this document. She said that she could not
make them up on the dais tonight. She said that she thought it was clear that th ey were
only potential criteria and not limited to those listed, and that a future process would need
to be developed very carefully.
Mr. Carrazana said that he also thought it was important to outline the community
engagement process that would go along with this as well. He asked for clarification
regarding the proposed changes to this section.
Mr. Missel said that the amendment would be "potential criteria for removing
underperforming areas from the Development Areas include but are not limited to the
following."
Ms. Firehock said that then, at the bottom, they could add a sentence to note that a future
process would fully flesh out the criteria, or something to that effect.
Mr. Missel said that he would be more comfortable if they also included language on page
11 that specified that "this process should include a robust community engagement
effort."
Mr. Murray asked if they could, after the words "potential criteria for," add the word
"assessing" so that it was clear they were evaluating their options as opposed to
definitively adding or removing areas. He said that they had already acknowledged that
the assessment may not lead to removal; it may lead to greater investments in the area.
Mr. Missel asked if it would be better stated as "criteria for assessing the removal of
underperforming areas from the Development Areas, including but not limited to the
following."
Mr. Bivins said that for those who may not be aware, in the 2025 Parade of Homes,
featuring 22 homes, over half of those homes were valued at $1 million or more. He said
that he would like to elaborate on why he was becoming increasingly concerned about
this topic. He said that this was one reason was that, when they had been consistently
building under capacity, it was inevitable that they would eventually transfer development
land to rural uses.
Mr. Bivins said that although it may not be officially designated as rural, it was being used
in a way that aligned more closely with rural land use. He said that currently,
approximately 50% of their land designated for development was no longer viable fo r
economic development. He said that they needed to address this issue for various
community reasons.
He said that with only 5.5% or 0.7% of their land available for development, they were
essentially done. He said that it was only when people started demolishing existing
structures that they would have the opportunity to redevelop. He said that believed t hat
this plan provided a reasonable framework for future generations to engage with the
Planning Commission and continue to move their community forward. He said that this
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 17
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
should be done in a way that was not locked into becoming a solely rural -designated
community.
Mr. Murray said that Albemarle's Development Area was about three times the size of
Charlottesville's, and he would not say that Charlottesville was done developing.
Mr. Bivins said that the boundaries between Albemarle and Charlottesville were false. He
said that if he could click his fingers, they would be done; they would be one unit, creating
a single entity, and then they would have their way. He said that this wh ole idea of using
Charlottesville, which originated from the University of Virginia in the 1800s, and how the
Rural Area around here promoted an economic basis that excluded most of the people
sitting on this dais. He said that to suggest that Albemarle Co unty was some kind of
nirvana or utopia compared to Charlottesville was a conversation they would continue to
wrestle with all night if they wanted to continue that.
Mr. Missel said that he believed they had effectively addressed the language regarding
Development Areas, boundaries, and land swapping.
Jenny Tevendale, Senior Assistant County Attorney, said that she would like to clarify the
language on page 11 of the GMP regarding community engagement. She asked where
specifically they wanted to add those words.
Mr. Missel said that perhaps it could be included so that it read, "the Board of Supervisors
could utilize a robust community engagement process to pursue a boundary revision
independently of a future area planning effort."
Ms. Firehock said that she would like to ask why it specifically mentioned the Board of
Supervisors instead of just the County. She said that she was not sure why the Planning
Commission or staff was not able to have that conversation. She asked if there w ere
specific legal criteria for that.
Mr. Missel asked if it could just say "County."
Mr. Barnes said that he viewed this as a case of the "royal we," where the County was
presenting itself as a unified entity. He said that it was likely that staff would be involved,
and the Planning Commission would be consulted, but ultimately, the Board of
Supervisors was taking the lead on this action. He said that it was not intended to exclude
the Planning Commission from the process.
Mr. Missel said that he would recommend that the language read, "the County, utilizing a
robust community engagement process, could pursue a boundary revision
independently…."
Mr. Barnes said that that would be acceptable.
Mr. Missel said that moving forward, he would refer to the broad topics referenced in the
suggestions from the public, without referencing specific details. He said that the Board
of Supervisors would have this document outlining the more specific informat ion. He said
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 18
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
that regarding housing, there was a recommendation to develop strategies to support low -
income homebuyers, in collaboration with supportive community partners. He asked if the
Commission supported this being considered.
Mr. Bivins said that while he had no problem with it, he would like to know more about the
community partnerships the County played an active role in. He said that for example,
there was the Regional Housing Partnership, the Regional Transit Authority, and other
organizations the County was a part of. He said that before he became prescriptive about
what the County should do, he would like to understand what existing agencies the
County was already a part of were working on, as they may already be addressing these
issues.
Mr. Moore said that upon reviewing Emily Dreyfus's comments, he believed there was a
lot of valuable material there; however, wordsmithing from the dais was not his favorite
thing, especially when this had been such a long process. He said that when introd ucing
new objectives or requirements, such as inclusionary zoning, these topics could be
complex and challenging to implement, and he did not think they could address them
today.
Mr. Moore said that he thought these considerations were important, and he did not want
to dismiss their validity, but they could not be addressed at the end of this Comp Plan
process. He said that some of the simpler suggestions, such as adding subordinat e
clauses or incentives, were more straightforward, but overall, he was not comfortable
adding in lots of new language at this phase.
Ms. Firehock said that she agreed with Mr. Moore. She said that she believed that the
chapter on affordable housing in this document and the County's already adopted
affordable housing strategy, were comprehensive and already supported collaboration
with partners. She said that she felt like these suggestions had already been addressed
in the County's policies.
Mr. Missel asked if there were any other suggestions that Commissioners wanted to
champion.
Mr. Bivins asked if the Board would be able to review these suggestions as well.
Mr. Barnes said that staff was providing a compendium of public comments, of which a
majority went to the Board as well as the Planning Commission. He said that the intent
was that if the Planning Commission heard something they wanted to pull up and
champion, they would have that to reference.
Mr. Missel said that he thought it was fair to say that the Planning Commission generally
agreed with the input from the HSG comments, which were available for future reference.
Mr. Carrazana said that while it did not constitute an amendment, he thought a lot of those
comments were beneficial.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 19
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
Mr. Missel said that next, he would ask the Commissioners to discuss the suggestions for
the DALU chapter implementation section.
Mr. Moore said that he thought that Action 1.3 was an intriguing concept that he would
like to explore further. He said that adding a new objective at this stage would be difficult,
and the idea of an affordable housing overlay was similar to the concept o f not having
neighborhood residential but starting with the middle. He said that he thought that either
of these could be useful tools, but it was difficult to incorporate them at this point.
Mr. Missel said that he also was interested in that suggestion for 1.3.
Mr. Bivins said that he would like to understand how this would be supportive and how it
would interact with the affordable housing and density bonuses, which were being
pursued in their development processes. He said that he imagined that the Commission
and the Supervisors would need to address this issue, particularly whether the incentives
were seen as effective in encouraging developers to build affordable housing. He said
that he thought that it was at that point that they could consider how to refine this approach
and whether new directions should be explored. He said that the Rio Small Area Plan
was going to be reviewed soon, and that may be an opportunity to explore this type of
idea further.
Mr. Carrazana said that he would like to emphasize the importance of measurable
outcomes and how they measured their goals in this policy. He said that this was crucial
in determining the effectiveness of their approach, particularly in the context of affo rdable
housing.
Mr. Missel asked for the Commission's feedback on the suggestion that they implement
a minimum of 80% local native species in all County projects and projects reviewed by
County staff.
Mr. Murray said that that was already part of their current Comprehensive Plan, which
could be found in section 4.25 of the document. He said that specifically, it discussed the
use of 80% native plants in community development projects. He said that he believed
this aligned with their existing efforts and made sense to include this in the updated plan
and to expand this standard to include all County properties. He said that given that the
County had already met this standard in most of its projects, he th ought it was a
straightforward requirement to continue their good work.
Mr. Missel said that he would like to note that it would be a guideline, as the
Comprehensive Plan was a guiding document. He asked Mr. Murray where that
recommendation should be placed in the document.
Mr. Murray said that he thought that should be added under the Environmental
Stewardship chapter, specifically under Objective 4.
Mr. Missel asked if staff had any thoughts on where that guideline would fit best.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 20
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
Mr. Holt said that under Action 4.4 in the Environmental Stewardship Chapter, they had
a bulleted list of recommended actions, so it could be added as a separate bullet point in
that list. He said that alternatively, it could be added as a new Action, Acti on 4.5.
Mr. Missel said that he thought it fit under 4.4.
Mr. Murray said that he would agree with that.
Mr. Missel said that they would add, "use a minimum of 80% locally native species on all
County projects." He said that the next several suggestions were regarding land
swapping, but he felt the Commission had adequately addressed that topic. He said that
next was the request to consider a revision to the Future Land Use Map, which was
proposed by Sweetspot of Albemarle LLC.
Mr. Bivins said that he would like to hear some history on that. He said that he was
intrigued to hear from the owner of the property that they had changed their property type
at the request of the County. He said that it would be helpful to know what it w as prior to
that and to confirm that the County had in fact asked them to do that.
Mr. Barnes said that as part of the 2015 plan, this was one of the last components. He
said that the Development Area was enlarged to include this parcel, and it was designated
as industrial in part due to the presence of the Deschutes Brewery. He said tha t there
was also a Comprehensive Plan amendment that included a Resolution of Intent to not
only consider this parcel, but also to study other parcels south of it for potential inclusion,
should the Deschutes property expand beyond this single parcel.
Mr. Barnes said that at the time, he was not present, so he may not have all the details,
but his understanding was that the Deschutes property was intended to encompass more
than just this parcel. He said that he believed that was the history.
Ms. Firehock said that she recalled being on the Planning Commission during that time,
and she did remember this change was initiated by the County to have the land in
appropriate zoning for this potential new use. She said that she was not in favor of tha t
change; in fact, at the time, it was proposed to create a much larger area, which
Supervisor Liz Palmer and she as the Commissioner opposed, and they reduced the area
to a much smaller one.
Ms. Firehock said that they basically saw their victory as achieving that reduced area
because initially it was much larger, even larger than what Deschutes needed. She said
that she could delve into a lengthy history of why Deschutes was never a good fit for that
site, as it lacked the necessary infrastructure and readiness for an industrial user. She
said that the site was only at a level one, far from being ready for industrial use.
Ms. Firehock said that she understood the property owner's difficulty now in trying to
market it as an industrial site, as it was not well-suited for that purpose. She said that
however, she had only heard their request in the past hour, so she was not pre pared to
amend the Future Land Use Map tonight. She said that her inclination, based on the site's
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 21
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
sensitivities and other factors, was that a mixed -use development would be more
appropriate. She said that this issue likely needed its own hearing.
Mr. Carrazana said that he wholeheartedly agreed that industrial was not the right
designation for that area and he did not think it fit well there at all. He said that he would
be in support of making the change, but he would note that it would only be a general
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. He said that he would feel comfortable
recommending that mixed use was more appropriate than industrial for that area.
Mr. Moore said that additionally, they had just had a public hearing a few weeks ago for
the parcel next door to this one. He said that this experience had really helped him to
better understand that part of the County more closely. He said that in underst anding the
broader area, he felt he could support that small change as well.
Mr. Bivins said that he would support that change as well. He said that if this would further
discussions about connectivity between parcels in this area as well as potentially
providing better access to Hedgerow Park, he would support that change.
Mr. Murray said that he was a bit uncomfortable with this coming to them at this stage
and without a thorough discussion of the implications, particularly for an area with
topographic challenges and was forested. He said that they had previously discussed the
Development Area swaps and specifically identified areas with topographic challenges
and difficulties in development as potential candidates for swaps. He said that this area
seemed to fit that description; however, he was generally in support of the idea of making
that change.
Mr. Missel said that he had heard numerous concerns from people in this area, including
residents of Sherwood Farms, who were worried about the impacts of the development
across the street as well as the environmental features of this site. He said that he thought
this was a very last-minute change to the Future Land Use Map, and he did not believe
the community had had the opportunity to weigh in on it.
Mr. Missel said that currently, it looked like the Planning Commission would provide a
recommendation that would directly go to the Board of Supervisors tomorrow, but they
had been talking about this plan for four years, so he did not understand why it was
happening at this point. He said that he would not support the request because, as they
had heard from staff, there were potential other opportunities for applicants to request
Comprehensive Plan amendments in the future.
Mr. Murray said that he agreed with that.
Ms. Firehock said that what was convincing to her in Mr. Missel's comments was the fact
that there had been no opportunity for the public to weigh in on the matter. She said that
this potential change to the FLUM had not been advertised to the public, nor was it
included in the meeting materials.
Mr. Missel counter to that, this was a public hearing, and they did make recommendations
to the Board through this process. He said that they could express their general support
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 22
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
for the intention behind this proposal, but they were also raising concerns about the
process that led to it. He said that he did not think they needed to say any more than that,
as it effectively conveyed their concerns to the Supervisors.
Mr. Barnes asked if the Commission had a recommendation for the Board at this juncture.
Mr. Carrazana said that it sounded like they were still talking through it. He said that while
he believed the land use change was appropriate, he was concerned about the timing.
He said that the process and how it was handled were not appropriate. He said that what
really swayed him was the Chair's point that there was no public hearing, no public
discourse, and no notification to the community.
Ms. Firehock said that there was a long process of getting it to the designation it currently
had, and that was very controversial.
Mr. Carrazana said that that gave him pause with regards to supporting the change.
Mr. Missel said that he believed technically there was a public hearing, which would be
the Board's public hearing. He said that however, there would not be another public
hearing before the Planning Commission as it currently was.
Mr. Barnes said that he would like clarification regarding whether the Commission would
like to recommend this FLUM change to the Board as part of the Commission's
recommended amendments to the Comp Plan.
Mr. Missel said that what he initially heard was that there was support for this in general
as a land use, which was what the Commission essentially oversees. He said that he was
more concerned about the process.
Mr. Barnes said that to clarify, there was support for the change, but concern was that
this was not the venue for this change.
Ms. Firehock said that the issue was that it was not advertised.
Mr. Missel asked if there were any other points of discussion from the Commission.
Ms. Firehock said that she had two changes to recommend. She said that on DALU 42,
she wanted to add a sentence to the end of the first paragraph. She said that for context,
she was concerned about was that when the state stormwater law was updated, a
committee had been formed to recommend changes to it. She said that the committee
had recommended that on-site water quality treatment be required, and that was
subsequently struck by the legislators when they wrote the bill.
Ms. Firehock said that as a result, the expert panel's recommendations were not followed,
and what they had seen was a huge decline in bioswales, French drains, and other best
management practices on-site to treat water quality. She said that people were buying
off-site credits, so local water quality declined in her community, while a stream was
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 23
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
restored elsewhere in the James watershed. She said that while that was great, it did not
help the local water quality.
Ms. Firehock said that, therefore, she wanted to add the sentence: "to minimize
degradation of local surface waters, on-site best management practices to treat runoff
and improve water quality are preferred over the purchase of off -site credits." She said
that they had successfully coaxed several developers to add on-site water quality
treatment by simply preaching that up here on the dais. She said that she would just like
to put it in as a county preference that they would like to see that, wherever possible. She
said that it was not a law, but rather a statement of their preference to prevent local water
quality degradation.
Mr. Bivins said that he was supportive of the concept since he had watched his colleague
cajole and change behavior. He asked if it was necessary to confine it to credits.
Ms. Firehock said that yes, they could still buy outside credits. She said that she wanted
to add that sentence was her concern with the preceding sentence that was currently
there, which read, "It is also recognized that impacts to some natural resources will occur
as new development proposals strive to meet the higher density and intensity goals for
the Development Areas."
Ms. Firehock said that this sentence was an acknowledgement that as they develop and
intensify density, they will see declines in natural resources. She said that she did not
want to just give up at that point. She said that instead, she would like to add that,
however, the County would really like to see on-site water quality treatment because it
could be done.
Mr. Murray asked if it could be "local" instead of "on-site."
Ms. Firehock said that she was mainly speaking to a developer's site, but she would be
fine with "local." She said that her main point was that the James watershed
encompassed a huge area from Highland County to the Chesapeake Bay, so buying
stormwater treatment credits was not as effective as on-site treatment.
Mr. Carrazana said that he would be concerned with eliminating the on -site requirement.
He thought they should consider retaining that language, as it would provide a more direct
and effective way to address water quality issues at the development site. He said that
perhaps they could say it was preferred to have on-site treatment or local treatment. He
said that it would be best to prioritize on-site treatment while still acknowledging local or
nearby improvements may be applicable.
Mr. Missel said that if they were preaching the benefits of unlocking density in the
Development Areas, they did have to look for alternatives, potentially.
Ms. Firehock said that she agreed, but she had worked with local architects to create a
Zoning Ordinance for Charlottesville that allowed for doubling density, as long as they
added water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs). She said that they did so, and
it was fine.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 24
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
Mr. Missel said that he agreed that sometimes if they pushed a little bit, and it could be
an amenity.
Ms. Firehock said that was true; it could be a beautiful garden that also provided pollinator
habitat and clean water. She said that people wanted to live next to it, they did not even
realize it was a stormwater feature.
Mr. Carrazana said that natural features like this could actually complement density very
well, so he did not think it should be one or the other.
Ms. Firehock said that yes, that was the issue she had with the tone of this section. She
said that it seemed to end on the dismal note that density resulted in environmental
degradation and there was nothing else that could be done. She said that this was why
she wanted to augment it with the addition of prioritizing on -site stormwater treatment in
order to avoid any potential degradation. She said that she fully believed they could have
denser development with less stormwater runoff.
Ms. Firehock said that she also had a note on CF-20. She said that she wanted to add a
new action to this section. She said that under Objective CF10, which was the main
objective, the topic was to improve urban stormwater management, drainage, and flood
control. She said that tone thing that she thought was lacking, was an action item to seek
opportunities to add stormwater best management practices to older neighborhoods that
lacked stormwater management. She said that she worked with localities throughou t the
south to achieve this, so she knew it was possible, and she thought it would be a
worthwhile action for this section.
Ms. Firehock said that to provide context for everyone, she would like to clarify a few
points. The Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, with stormwater amendments in 1987
that required stormwater management. She said that however, many of their
neighborhoods were older than that, and as a result, they had large areas of the County
and the City without any stormwater management. She said that all the water ran off into
storm drains, polluting the Rivanna River or other waterways.
Ms. Firehock said that she thought that retrofitting older neighborhoods to add best
management practices should be an action item within their Comprehensive Plan. She
said that while it might be a minor point, when they applied for grants for stormwater
management or other projects, it could be beneficial to have it written as a clear County
policy. She said that she had written many grants, and she could attest that having a clear
policy in place could make a big difference when seeking funding.
Mr. Missel asked if Ms. Firehock had any additional comments.
Ms. Firehock said that those were her two recommendations, but she would make one
closing statement. She said that she was heartened to see how many of the
Commission's comments and the public's comments had been incorporated into the plan.
Mr. Carrazana said that he concurred with those comments and would like to express his
gratitude to staff and his colleagues on the dais for their hard work. He said that he was
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 25
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
aware that it had been a long and challenging journey to reach this point, but he was
pleased with the progress made.
Mr. Murray said that he would like to acknowledge the significant improvements made in
this plan, particularly in recognizing multimodal traffic, advancements in sustainability,
and the recognition of the diversity of their County. He said that he appreciated the efforts
to better understand and address these issues; however, he did have serious concerns
about certain aspects of the plan.
Mr. Murray said that since the 1980s, the core principle of the Comprehensive Plan had
been protection of the County's Rural Area. He said that he feared that the vaguely
worded language around swaps had opened the door to significant expansion of the
Development Areas. He said that the current definition of "underperforming areas" could
apply to a majority of their Development Area, so he wanted to reiterate that this was a
significant concern of his. He said that it undermined the fundamental principle of the
County's Comprehensive Plan since 1980.
Mr. Bivins said that he had come to realize that this Comprehensive Plan shared
similarities with a strategic plan. He said that this was an idea that they hoped would guide
and send signals to various stakeholders for the next certain amount of years, aiming to
facilitate decisions within their community. He said that while it was not a perfect plan,
and it would never be, he believed it did serve a purpose.
Mr. Bivins said that land was an economic agent, and the County's goal was to facilitate
the decisions for people who had cash assets, whether it was to sell their property or
invest in their community. He said that they were being asked to make it easier for people
to make informed decisions, and he thought this plan was a step in the right direction. He
said that he was pleased with where they were, and he believed the community, staff,
and Commission should be proud of the progress they had made.
Mr. Bivins said that he was optimistic about the future and the potential for adjustments
to be made in the future. He said that he looked forward to seeing how the plan evolved
and how stakeholders would bring their ideas and suggestions to the table.
Mr. Moore said that he wanted to express his sincere appreciation for the amount and
quality of work that had gone into this Comprehensive Plan. He said that he had seen
firsthand the dedication of their staff in drafting, redrafting, and collecting feedba ck to
create something truly significant. He said that he also appreciated the addition of the
seventh Big Move, which focused on social and cultural connections. He said that he
hoped this would open doors for more intentionality around arts, parks, and t hird spaces
as they moved forward as a County.
Mr. Moore said that if he had one overarching critique, it was that the AC44 plan was too
wedded to their current status quo. He said that across the country, the gateway to the
American dream was closing, and it was becoming increasingly difficult for peo ple to
achieve it, especially those who were not already comfortable with good salaries and
owned homes. He said that Albemarle was not the most extreme example of that trend;
however, for those who had not already achieved that American dream in Albemarle ,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 26
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
many people were leaving their county, opting for Fluvanna, Waynesboro, and Greene
County instead.
Mr. Moore said that as that happened, those people were then forced to commute to
Charlottesville, which was unsustainable. He said that he wished they had a
Comprehensive Plan that prioritized making the American dream more achievable for
everyone in their region. He said that he thought there were some good things in AC44
that moved them in that direction, but it was too slow and tied to the status quo for people
who were struggling to make ends meet. He said that people were juggling expensive
childcare, eldercare, and underpaid jobs. He said that for those people, of which there
were many, he believed they should be moving faster to address these issues.
Mr. Moore said that overall, he supported this Comprehensive Plan and appreciated the
effort that had gone into it. He said that he was proud to be working on this as a County,
and he was committed to improving the lives of their residents and workers. He said that
however, he also wanted to note that he wished they could move a little faster on some
things.
Ms. Firehock said that she would not expound on her previous statements about how they
should rezone to the desired densities and make it easier for redevelopment, but she
would note that it was always a possibility the County could consider. She said that rather,
she would like to shift focus to the importance of completing the Rural Area plan for the
County. She said that there was a sentiment that the Comprehensive Plan did not go far
enough in addressing the Rural Area, which was somewhat acknowledged i n this
document.
Ms. Firehock said that the Rural Area was currently treated as an amorphous blob, failing
to provide specific details beyond farming, forestry, and rural living. She said that they
had promised to make a Rural Area plan, which would examine the unique char acter of
different regions and districts. She said that she would just urge the County leaders, staff,
and constituents to keep this promise and prioritize the development of a comprehensive
Rural Area plan. She said that she wanted to emphasize that in th e near term, they
needed to take up that planning process and complete that important work as well.
Mr. Missel said that he would like to share a few thoughts. He said that first and foremost,
he would like to express his gratitude to the staff for their hard work and dedication to this
project. He said that it had taken longer than anticipated, but he b elieved it also was
something that did not need to be rushed. He said that this Comprehensive Plan was a
significant document that would shape their community's future for the next 20 years, and
he thought the extended schedule was justified and they had a rrived at a good point.
Mr. Missel said that he also wanted to commend the staff for their out-of-the-box thinking,
which had helped them strike a balance between progress and preserving what was
already working He said that this plan was a living document, and he thought that wa s a
key aspect of its value. He said that it was not a static document that would be finalized
for 20 years; it was a starting point for ongoing discussion and refinement.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 27
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
Mr. Missel said that one area where he thought that could improve was in community
engagement. He said that he had been disappointed at times by the turnout for public
meetings and the lack of participation from their community. He said that he thought it
was essential that they make sure everyone had a voice in this process, and that they
provided opportunities for feedback and input. He said that he would ask the public and
County staff to take this into consideration, as that participation was essential to a fully
democratic process.
Mr. Missel said that back to the issue of things not being perfect, a lot of this process had
involved land use discussions. He said that land use was not a digital concept; it was
analog because every site and project was different, and they were trying to make a plan
that encompassed all of it. He said that this was part of the reason the plan was not perfect
but also part of the reason it was so diverse. He said that he thought this plan was much
more simplified than other Comprehensive Plans, but he als o thought it emphasized the
right things. He said that it respected preservation while unlocking development in the
growth areas and identifying ways to consider that.
Mr. Missel said that regarding metrics, he thought it was essential that they establish clear
measures of progress and accountability. He said that this plan provided a framework for
that, and he was glad they had the opportunity to revisit and refine it o ver the next 20
years. He thought they had had a productive discussion, and he was happy to see that
they had made some progress. He said that the Commission would take a brief recess to
finalize their recommendations.
Recess
The Commission recessed at 7:53 p.m. and reconvened at 8:02 p.m.
CPA2021-02 AC44 Comp Plan Update – Final Document Recommendation
(continued)
Ms. Swartzendruber said that they had a draft of the resolution, but they had gone ahead
and amended that resolution to include the amendments they had just discussed.
Mr. Missel said he would just read them for the sake of clarity, in case some members of
the public could not see this. He said the first amendment was under page GMP 11,
process. He said that ideally, the need for a development area boundary revision woul d
be identified by a future area planning effort. He said the County could pursue a boundary
revision with robust community engagement for a future area planning effort and should
request that the County Executive direct staff to develop a Development Area s report.
Mr. Missel said moving on to page GMP 12, the heading would be "potential criteria for
assessing and removing underperforming areas from the Development Areas, including
but not limited to the following." He said the third amendment would be on page ES 18,
Action 4.4, to add a sub-bullet point to use a minimum of 80% locally native species in all
County projects.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 28
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
Mr. Missel said that next, page DALU 42, they would add the following sentence to the
end of the first paragraph: "to minimize degradation of local surface waters, on=site or
nearby best management practices to treat runoff and improve water quality are pr eferred
over the purchase of off-site credits." He said that next, on page CF 20, adding Action
10.4, "seek opportunities to add stormwater best management practices to
neighborhoods lacking stormwater management."
Mr. Murray said that he would like to note that they had the Albemarle County
Conservation Assistance Program (ACAP), and he was wondering if they should mention
or encourage their county incentive programs in this context, as it would achieve that goal.
Mr. Missel said that he believed that was covered under the general direction to "seek
opportunities."
Ms. Swartzendruber said that she would also like to address the Commission's support
for the comments on housing. She said that staff could add that to the materials and pass
it along to the Board. She said that it would not necessarily be a change of language, but
rather that the Commission was supportive of that language as well as the language about
the Sweetspot change, in that the Commission was generally supportive of the intent, but
uncomfortable with the process.
Mr. Bivins motioned that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution with amendments
attached, recommending approval of CPA 2021-02. Ms. Firehock seconded the motion.
Mr. Bivins said that he wanted to acknowledge that many people who had worked on this
project may not be in the same roles as when they contributed, so he would like to say
that they all appreciated the work that got them this far.
The motion carried unanimously (6-0).
Committee Reports
Ms. Firehock said that the Historic Preservation Committee did not have a quorum, even
with the addition of new members.
Mr. Missel said that they needed to fix that.
Mr. Murray said that the Crozet Community Advisory Committee (CAC) met and they
discussed the mission of the organization and how the nature of the committee over time
had evolved into being more informative, where staff presented ideas to them, and they
responded with nods or walked away feeling informed, whereas in the past, the CACs
had been much more advisory in nature, with actual recommendations that they would
pass along to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Murray said that there was a general consensus that they wanted to start moving in
the direction of being more advisory and providing recommendations, rather than just
receiving information. He said that he thought it was a very interesting conversatio n. He
said that additionally, he would like to mention a joint Metropolitan Planning Organization
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 29
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
(MPO) meeting, where they discussed transportation opportunities for localities in the
region as well as their own initiatives, such as the potential for future rail opportunities.
He said that they also talked about the Afton Express, which had seen a sig nificant
increase in ridership to 16,000 people, and he found that impressive.
Mr. Murray said that furthermore, he was interested to learn that UVA employees could
now receive a free pass to ride, which was a great initiative. He said that they also
discussed the Virginia Breeze and the future connectivity it would provide, as well as the
Virginia Statewide Rail Plan, which would provide for more commuter traffic along a rail
system. He said that he was particularly interested in seeing if the Crozet train station,
which had been briefly operational, could potentially be revived. He said that it would be
an enormous asset to the region to have a convenient train service connecting Crozet to
Charlottesville and Staunton. He said that finally, they received an update on the Three
Notch'd Trail.
Mr. Moore said that he had two reports. He said that the Rio 29 Community Advisory
Committee meeting went well. He said they had a good conversation about the form -
based code in the Rio 29 Small Area Plan, which was upcoming for review and updates.
He said that also, he attended a meeting of the Citizens Transportation Advisory
Committee of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization, or CTAC
CAMPO. He said they had several presentations, including one on Strategically Targeted
Affordable Roadway Solutions (STARS) studies, which assessed safety needs and made
resident recommendations for the US-29 corridor from Hydraulic to Woodbrook.
Mr. Moore said that they also discussed the 29 -250 bypass interchange which was
currently being studied. He said that furthermore, they talked about the role and necessity
of the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee, which was not required by law. He
said that four out of 15 MPOs in the state had one, and they wondered if they truly needed
one outside of long-range transportation planning processes. He said he did not have a
strong opinion on the matter.
Mr. Moore said that finally, they reviewed projects that would be submitted for SmartScale
funding in the next cycle, including improvements to US -29 and I-64, Fifth Street and I-
64, and other corridors, such as Barracks Road and Ivy Road, with on -ramp and off-ramp
extensions and potential dual exit lanes at Barracks to improve capacity.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting: September 10 and 17, 2025
Michael Barnes, Director of Planning, said the September 10 work session meeting
covered Comprehensive Plan items, so he believed the Commissioners were well -
informed on what they discussed at that meeting. He said the September 17 meeting had
a couple of notable events. He said that in the afternoon work session, they addressed
issues with the fill section in their Ordinance, so staff held a work session with the Board
to gather their intent on this matter. He said they would like to know what the Board's
desired outcome was on this issue, and it would be incorporated into an ordinance that
would be presented to the Commission and the Board at a future date.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 30
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
Mr. Barnes said there was a public hearing on the transit occupancy tax, which he did not
pay close attention to, so he could not provide more information on that. He said the other
notable item was a land-use related matter regarding the utility easement on Huckleberry
Hills property. He said apparently, there were approximately 3,000 feet of overhead
electrical service on the property, which was already subject to a conservation easement
held by the Albemarle Conservation Easement Authority. He said a new easement would
require a 15-foot-wide corridor to underground the power, which was approved.
Mr. missel asked if tomorrow would be the final work session for AC44.
Mr. Barnes said yes, the work session on AC44 on September 10 went from 2:00 p.m. to
almost 8:00 p.m. and they got through a lot of documents said however, in Section 3, Part
3, there were some final chapters that required individual input from Board members. He
said they attempted to incorporate their comments into the document the Commission
reviewed tonight, but they needed to verify that their input was accurately reflected.
Mr. Barnes said the purpose of tomorrow's meeting was to ensure that Board members
had a chance to review the changes they suggested and see how they were implemented
in the document. He said he assumed it would be a brief meeting.
Mr. Missel asked about the 100-foot increase for industrial.
Mr. Barnes said yes, there was a zoning text amendment to consider a special exception
process to allow taller heights for industrial properties to accommodate more modern
industrial processes. He said that then, for the Comp Plan, they would bring it to the Board
on October 15, 2025, for a public hearing and final adoption.
Mr. Bivins said that it seemed like they had paused conversations around data centers.
He said that he wondered if staff could provide any kind of update on when they would
resume work on data center regulations.
Mr. Barnes said that it was currently being assessed at the Board level, and it was likely
that a decision would be made regarding whether to move forward at all.
Mr. Bivins said he spent some time in another part of the world, and it was quite striking
to him that they were discussing the placement of data centers in remote locations, often
paired with off-grid power plants. He said this trend seemed to be driven by the desire to
avoid community resistance in certain areas, and instead, locating data centers in more
accepting or nonconfrontational locations. He said he was seeing a pattern of this, where
companies may bypass areas with existing regulations or opposi tion by setting up data
centers in more remote or less populated areas, often with their own power systems. He
said he was wondering what was the current status of their data center plans for the
County and whether they would begin to see oddly placed data centers throughout the
country.
Mr. Murray said that he recently returned from his vacation in Davis, West Virginia, and
they were having that debate in that area.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 31
Final Minutes - September 30, 2025
New Business
There was none.
Old Business
There was none.
Items for follow-up
There were none.
Adjournment
At 8:13 p.m., the Commission adjourned to October 14, 2025, Albemarle County Planning
Commission meeting, 6:00 p.m.
_______________________________
Michael Barnes, Director of Planning
(Recorded by Carolyn S. Shaffer, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards;
transcribed by Golden Transcription Services)
Approved by Planning
Commission
Date: 10/14/2025
Initials: CSS