ARB begins entrance corridor addenda work; members debate when wooded buffers should be preserved

Albemarle County planning staff led a July 7 work session with the Architecture Review Board (ARB) to refine the entrance corridor design addenda, focusing on how the document should treat "wooded buffers" — where and when those buffers should be preserved, and what technical standards (if any) the addenda should recommend.

Staff told the board the addenda aim to identify corridor‑specific features that are important to preserve and to provide guidance where the existing guidelines are too general. "Are there corridors or portions thereof where deep or dense wooded buffers should be maintained? Staff's recommendation is, yes," a planning staff member said, asking the board whether it agreed.

Board members broadly supported the idea of identifying wooded buffers as a defining feature on particular corridor segments rather than imposing blanket numeric requirements everywhere. Several members said the addenda should be descriptive and inform a later, more technical guidelines update rather than function as a strict zoning prescription.

However, the discussion highlighted significant caveats. Members and staff warned repeatedly against relying solely on buffer depth as a proxy for screening because topography, species composition, and ownership of the land or right of way affect whether a buffer actually blocks views. "I don't feel like we should rely on buffers in rights of way for screening," one board member said, adding that rights‑of‑way trees can be changed quickly and that relying on them offers little assurance to reviewers.

Staff presented photographic and plan examples showing variable outcomes: in some developments a 70‑foot buffer substantially limited visibility, while at other sites a development was visible despite a much deeper buffer. The staff presentation cited examples with approximate building distances from corridors: Fifth Street Apartments (buildings ~660 feet from the corridor), Fifth Street Station (~220 feet), Altaview Apartments (~750 feet), Old Ivy Residences (~75 feet), Bridal Pointe (~25 feet with substantial dedicated frontage), and Brook Hill (~66 feet).

Board members proposed possible tools the addenda could include: typologies (for example, buffer types A/B/C with ranges or guidance), minimum evergreen composition (one board member suggested a significant evergreen share if the buffer is relied upon for year‑round screening), sectional drawings to account for topography and visibility, and requiring applicants to document existing buffer composition if they seek credit for it. Several board members suggested a matrix (depth, species mix, percent evergreen, spacing) that would be advisory but useful to applicants and reviewers.

Public comment during the meeting included Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum, who suggested the board consider whether VDOT‑owned trees in the right of way should count toward required buffers or receive a discount because applicants do not control that land.

Members also discussed legal and implementation pathways: staff noted that making wooded buffers regulatory (as opposed to advisory) would require ordinance or overlay changes, and work on the addenda would instead identify features that could inform a future update of the formal entrance corridor guidelines or other land‑use tools.

The work session ended with agreement to test the proposed evaluation approach on at least one corridor segment and bring a concrete example back to the board. No formal votes were taken during the work session; staff said it will continue drafting corridor‑specific addenda language and return with more detailed recommendations.