Albemarle County Board of Supervisors AC44 Work Session – September 10, 2025

This work session was held to review the initial draft of AC44, the county's comprehensive plan update. The board discussed each chapter in sequence, offering edits and seeking consensus on the plan’s content. Several changes were agreed upon, while a few items were deferred for further discussion with an absent supervisor and for subsequent public hearings. The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. due to loss of quorum, with remaining comments to be submitted to staff by email.

AC44 Overview & Part 1 (Plan Policy)

• Staff introduced the plan’s phases, public engagement results (∼30 attendees at August 21 open house, 16 online survey responses), and updates made per prior board feedback.
• The Planning Commission’s general feedback was presented: improve clarity, consistent voice, and reorder Part 1. The board agreed to those editorial refinements.
• Board comments:
  • Supervisor Mallek asked that language about the Monacan Nation be softened to acknowledge that some descendants remained rather than implying they all left.
  • Supervisor McKeel requested adding the Landsdowne (Lands Lane) Campus small area plan to the document (staff proposed placing it in the community facilities chapter).
  • Several supervisors noted map quality issues and requested that major thoroughfares be labeled for context.
  • Supervisor Pruitt questioned whether a static link to the Scottsville comprehensive plan would remain valid; staff agreed to add an archive note.
  • Supervisor Andrews asked for a demographic snapshot in the introduction; staff noted an editor is already revising the section.

Growth Management Policy (Part 2)

• The board debated whether to keep the criteria for removing/adding land in the development area (pages 11‑12).
  • Supervisor Mallek argued that this section was not as polished as the rest and should be moved to an appendix or given more time. Others (McKeel, Pruitt, LaPisto‑Kirtley) preferred to keep it in the plan to provide a framework.
  • Consensus reached: The section will remain in the plan, but the heading “Criteria for adding land” will be changed to “Criteria for assessing the adequacy of land in the development areas” (per Supervisor LaPisto‑Kirtley’s suggestion).
• On page 14 (water supply watershed), Supervisor Mallek urged that if a potential expansion area is in a watershed, that should be an automatic disqualifier. Supervisor McKeel and others opposed making it an automatic bar, preferring to keep it as a consideration. The board agreed to keep it as a factor, not a hard no.
• Supervisor Mallek raised concerns about the cost of extending water/sewer to ratepayers and asked for stronger language protecting water supply watersheds.
• Supervisor McKeel requested that transit be added to the list of development‑area services (page 7).
• Supervisor Pruitt emphasized that the 2025 build‑out analysis should be referenced, and that nuance (e.g., 56% vs 58% capacity) be reflected.
• Supervisor LaPisto‑Kirtley suggested adding language that the development area should be “caught up” on services before expansion is considered.

Development Areas Land Use (Part 3)

• Data centers: The board agreed to strike Action 2.6 (consider allowing data centers in development areas) because a separate policy discussion is ongoing.
• Trees: Supervisor Mallek praised new tree‑protection language but called for stronger enforcement and penalties against illegal clearing.
• Supervisor Pruitt raised concerns about the “Build‑Out Analysis” section, noting that numeric percentages can be misleading without actual acreage figures.
• Supervisor McKeel requested that transit connections be added to multiple land‑use descriptions.
• Supervisor Andrews supported removing Action 4.6 (join the Biophilia Cities network) because the county is already pursuing that.
• The board accepted several small editorial changes (e.g., citing the Rutgers study, clarifying walkable activity centers).

Rural Area Land Use (Part 4)

• Interchange studies (Yancey, Shadwell): After discussion, the board agreed to remove the last paragraph on page 8 that called for specific small‑area plans for these interchanges. Instead, language will be added referring to the Economic Development Strategic Plan and the ability to bring forward comprehensive plan amendments for individual projects.
• Transfer of Development Rights (2.5): Supervisor Mallek argued this is not ready for prime time. The board agreed to keep only the first sentence (”study the creation of a transfer of development rights program”) and delete the detailed receiving‑area assumptions.
• Restaurants in the rural area: A lengthy debate occurred. Supervisor Mallek wanted to prohibit restaurants; Supervisor Pruitt and others argued that small‑scale restaurants under criteria (size, traffic, character) could support tourism. Staff will refine language using existing country‑store performance standards.
• Adaptive reuse (5.1): The board agreed to strike the last sentence (“If adaptive reuse is not feasible…”) to avoid encouraging demolition.
• Several other minor edits were agreed upon (e.g., adding “accessory” to restaurant language, striking “only” in special‑events regulations).

Transportation

• Microtransit: Supervisor McKeel expressed concern that the plan assumes permanent funding. The board agreed to add: “Funding for microtransit will be reviewed with each budget cycle.”
• Safety: Supervisor Pruitt asked to add “prioritize installation of red‑light cameras at high‑crash intersections” (Action 6.7). Accepted.
• Supervisor LaPisto‑Kirtley agreed with the transportation section overall, noting that most of her comments had been covered earlier.

Housing

• Manufactured/modular homes: Supervisor Pruitt suggested that Action 2.1 should not limit these to the development area only; the board agreed to strike “in development areas” to allow future consideration of a manufactured‑housing district in the rural area.
• LGBTQ+ housing: Supervisor Pruitt questioned singling out LGBTQ+ groups. Supervisor LaPisto‑Kirtley noted unique challenges in shelter contexts. The board agreed to modify language to “LGBTQ+ and other advocacy groups.”
• Supervisor McKeel requested adding an action to promote affordable housing awareness (placed as new Action 7.2).
• Supervisor Mallek raised naturally occurring affordable housing (addressed in Action 2.3).
• Supervisor Andrews asked that the plan include community awareness of affordable housing opportunities.

Environment / Parks / Cultural Resources / Community Facilities

• Redundancies: Supervisor McKeel pointed out many overlapping statements; staff agreed to consolidate where possible.
• Sludge ordinance: Supervisor Mallek expressed strong support for Action 1.8 (adopt a biosolids ordinance).
• Tree preservation: Supervisor Mallek emphasized the need to enforce preservation of existing large trees.
• Pocket parks: Supervisor McKeel urged that park plans include accessible small parks in urban areas.
• Bike/pedestrian trails: The board discussed linking the three‑notch trail and using the county parks foundation for aggregated open‑space contributions.
• Cultural resources: Supervisor Mallek asked that murals be added to Action 2.8 and that all cemeteries be protected (strike “historic” from language).
• Community facilities: Several small edits were made, including adding the Landsdowne campus plan and clarifying that public water/sewer extensions should not be used solely to enable new development.

Key Outcomes

• The board reached consensus on the majority of items, with staff directed to incorporate agreed edits into the final draft.
• Items that were deferred for further discussion with Supervisor Galloway (absent) or for staff refinement include: details of the development‑area land‑swap criteria, specific interchange policy language, and restaurant regulations in the rural area.
• The public hearing before the Planning Commission remains scheduled for September 30, 2025; the Board of Supervisors’ public hearing is October 15, 2025.
• Due to loss of quorum at 4:00 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. Remaining chapter comments (Cultural Resources, Community Facilities, Implementation) were to be submitted by supervisors to staff via email.
• The next work session is September 17, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. in Lane Auditorium.