Board wrestles with AC44 land‑use choices as planners push denser activity centers

Planning staff summarized the draft AC44 chapter for development areas and asked for direction on 12 proposed future land‑use categories, activity‑center types and a proposed increase in minimum density in development areas. Tanya Swartzendruber and Community Development Director Jody Filardo described a proposed hierarchy of regional, employment, community and local centers intended to concentrate growth and guide infrastructure investments.

Supervisors raised a raft of concerns that focused on feasibility and sequencing. "We keep saying we want walkable activity centers, but we don't yet have the transit and infrastructure to make many of those work," said a supervisor during the discussion, stressing the need for realistic performance standards and a utilization review tied to application‑level scorecards. Multiple board members questioned whether the county could support the number of mixed‑use centers shown on the draft map, asked for mapped walk‑sheds that account for barriers such as Route 29, and urged clearer ties between the comp‑plan map and capital‑investment priorities.

Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and whether they should be allowed by right drew broad comment: some supervisors supported limited by‑right ADUs with performance standards; others warned that without careful rules ADUs might primarily be used for student housing. Supervisors also pushed planning staff to identify a small number (four to five) of regional centers that would be the primary focus for future public investment and structured parking. Staff said those implementation priorities and an engagement plan for Phase 3 would be returned to the board in upcoming meetings.