[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6479815,"mediaKeyId","5692087-2f4c9513f6c159cc8534a06f3623f13e","parentId",5692087,"title","Commissioners press for clearer metrics, incentives to reach development-area density goals","audioSeconds",977,"startMs",2813000,"endMs",3790000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5692087-2f4c9513f6c159cc8534a06f3623f13e&start=2813&end=3790","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5692087-2f4c9513f6c159cc8534a06f3623f13e/thumbnail_2813000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6479815/Albemarle-County/Virginia/Commissioners-press-for-clearer-metrics-incentives-to-reach-development-area-density-goals","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6479815-600124e284d491297e7faa118445d25f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770447567&Signature=G9KA1KX4Y4lIG~UWXwkjmacmjkXjcfCj7DGRQ1uazjSulxWwQa11tFRZEjPb8kpXgcrdAlLEoHEi3GfPsV1LEB5H--tDsCHW1rTUDGVxYHU8Omfzoka4QYX5lsgcLH4G4cB8ryPRx1cV9G46jmmQTYz-k3SSManLQgW1xtm15SRyQmu8COuVKe-YH-LXWAAY-DF4o1Jl20uNPZg5MtflZXDkLwfCdKcKt6CO9gndClsx9ShKDQivPoil40jv56PhRtoId88XH9Sp8rf8Htbgc9QJIr67DkbVTdm7bEZFWCXvQlQPU7hkSvDCFylboOlA1WVjxI399lphn8HyrF00Ww__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Albemarle County","date","2025-08-27T12:52:10Z","article","Commissioners and staff spent considerable time on Aug. 26 discussing how the draft plan translates future‑land‑use categories and the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) into actual development outcomes inside the county’s development areas.

Several commissioners said the 2015 plan’s density targets were not achieved and asked how AC44 will correct that. Commissioners recommended stronger, concrete tools in the plan to encourage density inside development areas: examples cited included targeted rezoning of specific parcels (rather than relying only on applicants to seek rezonings), clearer activity‑center boundaries linked to incentives, regulatory changes to ease the “missing middle” housing types, and performance incentives for projects that provide additional affordable units.

Commissioners suggested that the draft should make clearer whether the county is (a) changing the map to add higher‑density land, (b) consolidating land-use categories, or (c) using regulatory and incentive tools to increase net development capacity inside existing FLUM designations. Several commissioners argued the last approach — enabling higher realized density on land already in the development area — must be the focus because the board has signaled that major boundary expansion is not expected.

On metrics, staff proposed tracking a limited set of indicators tied to the plan’s “big moves” (for example, population growth by location, change in preserved and new affordable housing units, and cost‑burdened households). Commissioners warned against an unworkable laundry list of metrics and asked staff to coordinate with the county’s strategic‑plan and spear reporting processes so performance measures are actionable and resourced.

Transportation and transit came up repeatedly: commissioners said removing parking requirements or enabling reduced parking in activity centers depends on realistic multimodal options (transit, safe bike/ped networks) and suggested the plan include short‑ and medium‑term “baby steps” to measure progress toward reduced vehicle miles traveled.

Staff said they will consolidate and refine indicators for the big moves so the plan provides a clear set of measurable targets and reporting expectations while relying on the county’s strategic‑plan machinery for detailed annual performance tracking.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Albemarle County Planning Commission Work Session Meeting 08/26/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Members emphasized that the draft plan must include specific, measurable strategies to achieve higher density in development areas — including clearer activity‑center boundaries, rezoning options, incentives for missing‑middle housing and tracking metrics tied to the big moves.","taxTitle","Albemarle County, Virginia","taxId",4417,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6479820,"Commission debates development-area boundaries, 'swaps' and criteria for future revisions in AC44 draft",1308,3762000,5070000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5692087-2f4c9513f6c159cc8534a06f3623f13e&start=3762&end=5070","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5692087-2f4c9513f6c159cc8534a06f3623f13e/thumbnail_3762000.jpg","/articles/6479820/Albemarle-County/Virginia/Commission-debates-development-area-boundaries-swaps-and-criteria-for-future-revisions-in-AC44-draft","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6479820-8b33b4e1405cbeef54ea4ef4d0710e53/orig.mp4?Expires=1770447567&Signature=au2Scsm8NtTTd9JzuBYxKqfZzbuMQOj7cfe1Zew1nWmTvYFQcywCvBun~NBq8MHHBHJYG6uL-2IVgf0WIxSP1NLoNxcODbGSs3X6qJNmCVaYjLzDOfCT4GuSnRRc9kGH-XpCJ5zkdlOvs5LpaeeTG8Q04~51PxG7nesLAPaxbCaP0CUYgH~eF1B7BujQKgKzPfMQUbh~L-JW5ehS2aw6kiOyPasIeYWYcBF8SPuRB3NGpHBAgIQGudMA9gw5okO6TaM9ms2XJAz9KuVJNb~UjUSzsTOwrzZLOCwPuMfEmlDfBtbv78~NZGuKZgBzQ3HPLwBl~aAzQZ33MQCRxAsYGw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Albemarle County planning commissioners spent a substantial portion of the Aug. 26 work session probing the draft comprehensive plan’s guidance on development-area boundaries, utilization reviews and the idea of “swapping” acreage at the margin of the development area.

Commissioners repeatedly told staff that the present draft contains language they considered “wishy‑washy,” especially where the document states there is “no policy that the development area boundaries should remain unchanged.” Several commissioners urged clearer, firmer language that would make the county’s intent obvious to landowners and the market, saying ambiguous wording risks fueling land speculation near development edges.

Commissioner Murray, Commissioner Claiborne and other commissioners raised multiple technical concerns about swaps — the option described in the draft by which acreage inside a development area that is practically undevelopable (for example, because of steep slopes, stream buffers or other constraints) could be removed and replaced with an equivalent acreage elsewhere on the development-area boundary. Commissioners asked staff to clarify criteria that would make a swap a conservation‑oriented trade rather than simply a color change on a map that enables development elsewhere.

Staff reported board-level direction that staff should both: (a) continue to emphasize that the plan will maximize efficient use of the current development area and is not recommending boundary revisions as a default; and (b) develop objective criteria that would govern any future boundary revisions, so the county has a defensible, transparent process for considering swaps or minor adjustments.

Commissioners and staff discussed several criteria and policy tools that could be included in the draft or a companion document: an explicit prohibition of “color‑on‑the‑map” swaps that leave development potential unchanged; a requirement that any land removed from a development area show a tangible conservation benefit (for example, down‑zoning or permanent protection); and that any acreage added to a development area be matched to a demonstrable increase in realistic development capacity (e.g., ability to achieve higher net buildable units).

Several commissioners suggested making transfer of development rights (TDRs) a default mechanism when any expansion of development potential is proposed: requiring that new density be purchased via TDRs would reduce the incentive to buy undeveloped land in hopes of a zoning windfall. Commissioners also asked staff to consider whether TDR programs should include an urban receiving area (as in Arlington/Pearl‑city examples) as well as rural sending areas.

Commissioners asked staff to redraft the development-area sections to: (1) remove ambiguous language that could be read as endorsing boundary change by default; (2) list objective, measurable criteria for any swap or boundary revision; and (3) clarify the approval path and the conservation outcomes expected when swapping acreage.

No formal action on boundary changes was taken at the meeting; staff will return with revised wording and additional detail for future review.","Commissioners pressed staff for clearer language and firm criteria governing potential changes to development-area boundaries, including when land can be removed from development areas, swapped and how transfers of development rights (TDRs) might be used to avoid speculative expansion.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6479824,"Albemarle Planning Commission opens public review of draft AC44 comprehensive plan; comment period runs through Sept. 5",12876,114000,12990000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5692087-2f4c9513f6c159cc8534a06f3623f13e&start=114&end=12990","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5692087-2f4c9513f6c159cc8534a06f3623f13e/thumbnail_114000.jpg","/articles/6479824/Albemarle-County/Virginia/Albemarle-Planning-Commission-opens-public-review-of-draft-AC44-comprehensive-plan-comment-period-runs-through-Sept-5","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6479824-e9f1cc870b0b209c216b9323153fcdd0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770447567&Signature=ObBcg5y8GX0xLCSDqf0qrlN0qDpLspYmMO1~cOAFY20joyjkmMLWuGVhbklUaP0KKXMDkET4U6WpTG9TbxSFYSEu5WFv97xnvUN6SHFDnBOJ-8f9tGSW6HzH~E5an2D7qJIQOIj9D0SXrGGt6rKEY2Ys6iv3s4o2LfLAOkb9qljLKstXOAgpGFTYYDCEBY1RZqp2-c~9UdTxAOKpBPQ-92oI3hKuLBzOVRmtqcEnVz-TtghJVnBPTPW~3mQ8tcg-OopESek40WNFW4TnKwlAyHY~VcnDDaV~aag4H2cgl5kQVn4b5mU6Iep98HJclBcZ7-dhXfUmGBOisMB094q9bQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Albemarle County Planning Commission on Aug. 26 held a work session on the county’s draft comprehensive plan (referred to in the presentation as AC44), receiving a staff overview of the phase-4 draft, public engagement to date and the remaining review schedule.

Ben Holt of the county’s Long Range Planning Division presented the draft and described outreach metrics: the new phase-4 web page has had “over 400 visits” and roughly 100 downloads of plan parts 1–3; a website feedback tool and comment form remain open through Sept. 5. Holt told the commission staff will present an updated build‑out analysis to the board on Sept. 3, review draft plan content with the board on Sept. 10, hold a commission public hearing on Sept. 23, and present the plan to the Board of Supervisors for adoption on Oct. 15.

The session focused on whether the draft document accurately reflects prior policy direction and whether it sets clear, measurable pathways for implementation. Commissioners discussed organization and tone of part 1 (overview), the prominence of guiding principles and the plan’s “big moves,” and the need for linked, navigable tables of contents and maps for public and applicant use.

Commissioners and staff agreed to collect editorial (typo/grammar) comments offline while using the work session to focus on substantive policy and implementation issues. Several commissioners urged the addition of more prominent statements about what makes Albemarle distinct — for example, the county’s history of concentrating growth inside development areas and protecting its rural character — and to reposition the guiding principles earlier in the document as the “lens” for later chapters.

Actions taken at the start of the meeting were limited to the consent agenda: the commission moved and seconded approval of the draft minutes from the July 8, 2025 meeting; the chair called for a vote and the motion was approved.

Staff and commissioners said they will return with revised language and additional cross‑references and that they will continue to collect public comments through the website until Sept. 5. The commission will use that feedback and the Sept. 3 build‑out update to prepare materials for the Sept. 23 public hearing.

For the public: the draft plan is posted on the Albemarle County Planning Commission web page; comments may be submitted through the site until Sept. 5. The commission’s next public hearing on the plan is scheduled for Sept. 23; the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider adoption on Oct. 15.","The Planning Commission reviewed the county's draft comprehensive plan (AC44), heard staff presentation on outreach and schedule, and directed further edits; the public comment portal remains open through Sept. 5 with public hearings planned for Sept. 23 (commission) and Oct. 15 (board).","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners press for clearer metrics, incentives to reach development-area density goals

Commission debates development-area boundaries, 'swaps' and criteria for future revisions in AC44 draft

Albemarle Planning Commission opens public review of draft AC44 comprehensive plan; comment period runs through Sept. 5