Planning Commission reviews draft AC44 housing chapter, focuses on land use, affordability and infrastructure

Albemarle County planning staff presented the draft housing chapter of the countycomprehensive plan (AC44) during the Planning Commissionwork session on April 8, 2025. Tori Kanalopoulos, principal planner, and Dr. Stacy Petthe, Assistant Director of Housing, briefed commissioners on objectives, community input, and two focus questions about land use and affordable housing outside development areas.

The chapter condenses and reframes the Housing Albemarle policy adopted in July 2021 as a land‑use oriented housing chapter of AC44 and keeps the policy as an appendix. Dr. Petthe told the commission that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developmentrecently updated the area median income for the Charlottesville metropolitan area and "It is now $125,800," a figure staff said shapes affordability targets.

Commissioners emphasized several themes. One focus question asked what factors—beyond activity centers and mixed‑use nodes—should guide future area plan updates to allow more housing. Commissioners repeatedly raised proximity to existing infrastructure and services (water, sewer, schools, and groceries), walkability and access to jobs, and the presence of existing built infrastructure (for example underused parking lots in development areas) as key factors. Commissioner Claiborne and others pressed staff to be explicit in the chapter about linking housing goals to capital improvements so new housing can be served by roads, schools and utilities.

The second focus question asked what guidance the plan should include for reviewing affordable housing proposals outside the development areas (for example requests related to manufactured home parks). Commissioners said a guiding principle should be "do no harm" to rural character and watersheds, while looking for ways to allow smaller footprints, clustering, or bonus density where resource constraints (notably water and septic capacity) and environmental protections allow.

Staff summarized prior Planning Commission feedback and community input, including a broad public desire for a variety of housing types and price points (smaller units, "missing middle" housing types, multifamily near jobs and services), preserving existing units, aging‑in‑place options, and support for energy efficiency and rehabilitation programs. Kanalopoulos noted the draft chapter contains seven objectives focused on increasing supply, preserving existing housing, addressing energy cost burdens and unmet needs for people who are unsheltered.

Staff also reviewed priority actions drawn from Housing Albemarle and the housing policy: exploring county‑owned land for affordable housing, incentives to increase production of affordable units, studying an affordable dwelling unit ordinance, creating a housing trust fund with an advisory committee, and expanding permanent supportive housing. Dr. Petthe noted the county has added permanent supportive housing recently, citing an 80‑unit development referenced in the presentation.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about two items in the draft. Commissioner Murray asked about Objective 3.3language to "develop and implement a sustainable housing trust fund" and staff clarified the adjective "sustainable" is intended to mean a fund with an identified recurring revenue source rather than relying only on annual budget allocations. Murray and others also asked about Objective 4.2, which calls for examining rental inspection district programs; staff said enforcement of existing complaints about rental conditions is handled by Community Development and that the county has not adopted the Virginia Maintenance Code for existing structures (the transcript records that as an explicit county posture).

Several commissioners pressed staff for more explicit language and stronger actions in the chapter. Commissioner Bivens and others encouraged prioritizing underused commercial parking lots in development areas for housing because such sites already have water/sewer and are close to services. Commissioner Burns and others urged more direct objectives to link housing goals with capital planning and revenue so infrastructure keeps pace with growth, noting recent AMI increases and the countys constrained affordable housing pipeline. Commissioner Moore asked staff to clarify counts in the draft: staff said roughly 101 AHIP (Albemarle Housing Improvement Program) preserved units were identified, and approximately 2,000–2,200 proffered affordable units are in the development pipeline though timing is uncertain.

On manufactured home parks and rural proposals, commissioners said proposals outside development areas should be judged on water/septic capacity, footprint and environmental impacts, and whether the change would conflict with the county's rural protection goals. Several commissioners suggested studying existing small rural communities that historically contained a mix of modest houses and could provide a model for new, smaller‑footprint development that preserves community character.

Staff outlined next steps and schedule: the draft housing chapter was to go to the Board of Supervisors in early May (staff cited a Board work session on May 7, and additional outreach including lunch‑and‑learn sessions and a May 22 in‑person community meeting). Kanalopoulos asked commissioners for guidance on the two focus questions and for feedback on objectives and actions to incorporate into the AC44 process.

The commission's discussion will inform final edits to the housing chapter before transmission to the Board of Supervisors.