Albemarle planners press land-use, site-ready strategies in AC44 ‘Thriving Economy’ chapter

Albemarle County planning staff on March 11 outlined the draft “Thriving Economy” chapter of the county’s AC44 comprehensive-plan update, asking the Planning Commission to prioritize land and infrastructure for employment uses while the county’s separate economic development strategic plan is finalized.

County planner Ben Holt, presenting on behalf of the AC44 team, said the chapter focuses on seven broad ideas: aligning growth-management and land-use policy with economic development goals, maintaining land inventory for light industrial and flex uses, supporting business retention and expansion, encouraging site-ready properties, strengthening workforce development and childcare support, and supporting rural economic activities such as agricultural processing and low-impact recreation.

The chapter matters because it links the 20-year comprehensive plan to near-term implementation: staff said they expect the final draft AC44 to be published for review in June and hope the Board of Supervisors will adopt the plan later in 2024. In the meantime, the economic development strategic plan (EDSP) is being refined and will provide more detailed implementation guidance, but staff argued the comprehensive plan must still set durable land-use directions now.

Holt and Emily Kilroy of the county’s economic team told commissioners the county’s build-out analysis found a shortage of “development-ready” employment parcels. Tori Kanalopoulos, principal planner, said an internal review identified roughly 39 parcels in development areas that might qualify as potential employment sites but that the team did not map those parcels in the initial analysis; many of the candidate sites were ranked Tier 2 or Tier 3 in the county’s tiered site-readiness system.

Kilroy explained the tier system: Tier 1 is raw land; Tier 2 is land with appropriate comprehensive-plan designations and public control or an active private developer; Tier 3 has zoning and site due diligence complete; Tier 4 is the preferred target — a site cleared, graded, with infrastructure and a preliminary site plan so vertical construction can begin quickly. She and Holt pointed to Ravenna Futures as an example of a parcel the county has been working to advance from Tier 1 toward Tier 4 and said North Fork currently contains a Tier 4 site.

Commissioners pressed staff on several recurring topics: whether university- or foundation-owned parcels (the UVA Foundation was counted in the build-out study, staff said) should be treated differently in inventory; how redevelopment opportunities (vacant malls, empty big-box sites, underused office stock) factored into the analysis; and whether the county should use county-led rezonings or other incentives to bring more sites to Tier 4.

Commissioner comments emphasized workforce housing and incubator space as economic-development priorities. Commissioner Moore and others urged a broad view of “economic development” that includes supporting childcare, workforce training, small-business financing and co-op models. Commissioner Bivens cautioned that the county’s limited development-area land and the trade-offs between housing density and employment land must be addressed explicitly. Several commissioners said the county should identify where infill and higher-density redevelopment can supply smaller, flexible workspace and non‑spec incubator space for startups.

Kilroy described current economic-development work: the county is partnering with Resonance for a data-driven EDSP and is looking at job-creation wins such as Afton Scientific (an Avon Street extended life-sciences expansion), the Ravenna Futures effort adjacent to a federal installation and a recent public-private redevelopment that brought a Home Depot to the Fashion Square Mall site. Kilroy noted Albemarle’s strong STEM job growth and high educational attainment, and she flagged a regional challenge: the county’s underrepresentation of prime working‑age adults (ages 25–44) compared with peers.

On incentives and implementation, staff and commissioners discussed a menu of tools: county-led rezonings to reduce rezoning costs and time, targeted capital improvements (CIP) to support activity centers, use of capital grants and CDBG funds for infrastructure to unlock employment sites, and assistance for incubator and retrofit projects that lower the cost to small users (e.g., microloans, façade or wiring assistance). Commissioners suggested better mapping of Tier 2 and Tier 3 parcels, a clearer inventory and an analysis of redevelopment capacity so the county can show where the projected 20‑year demand for roughly 3.4 million square feet of office/retail/industrial might be met.

The Planning Commission did not take formal votes on AC44 content at the March 11 session; staff said the commission’s feedback will be shared with the Board of Supervisors as the county continues work sessions in April. Kilroy said the EDSP is expected to be finalized before AC44 adoption, and staff described the comprehensive-plan chapter as intentionally higher‑level in places so that the EDSP can provide the detailed implementation approach.

Staff urged commissioners to weigh protecting designated and zoned employment land against proposals to convert those lands to other uses, to support the creation of Tier 4 sites by coordinating CIP funding, and to consider incentives for redevelopment and infill, particularly to produce small, flexible spaces and workforce housing near job centers.

With the EDSP and AC44 on a tight schedule, commissioners asked staff for clearer maps of candidate sites, more detail on how university and foundation lands were counted in build-out figures, and a better inventory of redevelopment opportunities along corridors such as U.S. 29. Commissioners also requested follow-up on transportation and workforce-housing strategies prior to final AC44 action.