Planning Commission Regular Meeting   10/14/2025

May we have the roll, please?

Nathan, can you unmute and turn your camera on, please?

I'm here.

Mr. Missel?

Here.

Mr. Carrazana?

Here.

Mr. Clayborne?

Here.

Mr. Murray?

Here.

Mr. Bivins?

Here.

Mr. Moore?

Well, we need a motion to include Mr. Moore, correct, in the meeting?

He can participate virtually since he's got an injury.

Would anybody like to make that motion?

Second.

Second.

How much will you pay me, Nathan, to vote no?

With that, could we have the roll, please?

Mr. Bivins?

Aye.

Mr. Murray?

Aye.

Mr. Carrazana?

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone, but Julian.

I voted yes.

So I think we're good?

Yes.

You'll have a minute left.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Stuart Overby.

OK.

So moved, Chair.

Second.

All right, may we have the roll, please?

Mr. Bivins?

Aye.

Mr. Murray?

Aye.

Mr. Clayborne?

I'll abstain since I was not present.

Mr. Missel?

Aye.

I'm sorry, Mr. Carrazana?

Aye.

Thank you.

Thanks, everybody.

I'm sorry, Mr. Moore?

Aye.

Was that a aye?

Yes.

You're muted.

Well, yes, that was an aye.

Not sure why.

Can you see that he's there?

Yeah, I can see you.

So aye, yes, aye.

OK, thank you.

So we'll begin with the one I mentioned, then we'll go to AFD 2025-2, and then we'll go to AFD 2025-3.

And with that, I'll take any questions you have before we open it up for public hearing.

If you committed to, voted to recommend renewal of the district without the self-recommended, okay, renewals.

Without removing the parcels.

Any questions for staff?

The variation is determined by the committee.

And with the intention of in five years, it's reviewed again, it will move back to the 10 year review cycle.

Awesome.

Yeah, Commissioner Murray.

Do you have an idea like annually on average, like how many family subdivisions are we seeing?

We can find it for you.

But again, that's a long-standing policy that's been there since the inception of the program.

I'd be interested to know just how many, I mean, not just in the forest districts, but overall, because it does provide a lot of exceptions to other policies as well.

Any other questions?

I have one.

Commissioner Murray, you done?

Anything that would be helpful for us to know as we deliberate?

Thank you.

On this piece that I find quite interesting is that you have a group of individuals who refuse to accept what the supervisors have said.

Say that again, Julian.

But I just feel, since I won't be here for the next time you say this, I will say this on my way out the door.

Thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Firehock.

They would be stocking up some extra money to pay the rollback taxes or what?

I'd like to keep this tax level now and pay the rollback taxes in five years.

I mean, why would we even have really small parcels within an AFD?

It's a more cohesive whole and that all of the neighbors are coming together, whether you have two acres or 200 acres, you're coming together to preserve that.

So I guess, what would you say is the number one benefit, or why would someone, why would or should someone join a district?

Oftentimes the people I've been speaking to this year and last year are people who are in the agriculture or forestry categories of land use and the paperwork is just a bit too burdensome and it's slightly easier to just be a member of an AFD and qualify.

That automatically be qualified for that.

And so they join a district kind of as a halfway step to sort of test the waters, as it were.

That was helpful.

to stall development that was contiguous with the district's boundaries.

Like a bypass, for example.

Remember, there was a northern and a southern option that got put on ice.

Firehock had about the small districts and a few acres, that changed in 2016, right?

Thank you.

And Commissioner Moore?

Great.

I'm sorry.

Can you talk a little bit more about that?

And so I think if I'm remembering correctly, it will be changed back to fair market tax rate, presumably at the next year, next financial year.

Okay, so it is going to be removed from the district?

But it doesn't have any development rights.

It doesn't have development rights, and it seems like the policy would suggest its removal.

And we're doing that because of the land use qualification.

Here's some time to sort out your tax status.

Thank you.

Yes.

OK, so just to sum up, is it fair statement that all of the parcels that are slated for removal are all ones that don't have development rights, and that's the sole reason for their being on that list?

Yes.

OK, thank you.

Anybody like to kick us off?

So even having said that, I still would be in support of the recommendations for the removals because of it meeting county policy.

It's a shame that this program can't be more narrowly tailored to encourage the kind of conservation programs that we want to see in Albemarle County because then I think we'd get a lot more value out of it.

It couldn't be subdivided any further, but it was providing other values.

I would love to see us ask if, you know, for the ability to include those properties, because I think that we would get a more measurable benefit out of this period.

Yeah, I mean, that's obviously something that would have to change at the state legislature's level.

True.

Okay.

So as a matter of, I guess, process, should we make a motion for each of the three?

Mr. Moore has a comment.

So I kind of wonder about those community benefits that we saw listed on the slides earlier.

generating revenue because they've been in the Ag Forestal District, right?

Got it.

Land use and this do not impact the way the state sees the value of the land here.

Yeah.

Would anybody like to make a motion?

We do need to do them one at a time.

Do we do all three or?

I think for clarity, it would be good to do one for each, a motion for each district.

Is there a motion?

I motion to accept the recommendations for the removals for AFD 2025-0001 Green Mountain AFD.

All right, could we have the roll, please?

Mr. Bivins?

Aye.

Mr. Murray?

Aye.

Mr. Missel?

Aye.

Firehock?

Sorry.

Move.

Second?

Second.

Call the roll, please.

Mr. Moore.

Aye.

Mr. Clayborne.

Aye.

Mr. Bivens.

Do I have a motion?

I move to accept the recommendations for the removals in AFD 2025-0003 Batesville AFD.

May we have the roll please?

Mr. Moore?

Aye.

Mr. Carrazana?

Aye.

Mr. Missel?

Aye.

Mr. Clayborne?

Aye.

Mr. Murray?

Aye.

Mr. Bivins?

Aye.

Thank you.

Good to see you, Mr. Newberry.

With that, I can take questions.

I'll start at this end.

No, it's pretty straightforward, I thought.

Yeah.

It is a new,

And, you know, they may be there may be other reasons why they increase or decrease that number.

development back or any kind of changes, rezoning, or you're still grandfathered into whenever you, is that the, I guess that's not the way I read the policy, but it's grandfathered into whenever it was first applied for, even though you're changing.

So in this case, these extra units that we're looking at and trying to apply the new policy to that.

Some conversation there or how we look at our policy, our housing Albemarle policy, if when they come back, if a site's been sitting there for 10 years, 20 years, hasn't been developed, and now they're coming back with a new development, is there some leverage to actually use a new policy instead of falling back on the old?

Thank you.

So it's kind of like that, but here you've got new residential that does get the new housing policy attached to it, I guess.

I mean, I guess it could be some of the logic, but that was not the way we were looking at it.

Any other questions for staff?

So why would we be concerned with the traffic would be there today?

The applicant may cover this in their presentation, but the expectation is that if residential uses were constructed there, that there would be less overall vehicle trips than if it developed non-residential.

I have one other question, Chair, if I could.

Will it all sort of have a similar kind of feel to it as the closest to the sidewalks?

Yep.

Any other questions for?

Because particularly since there were some comments about that.

as adjacent to Timberwood and Burke Marr and on to Connor Drive to get into the shopping center area.

Yeah, Mr. Moore?

Okay.

Sorry, the applicant's report.

If you have any questions for me, I'm happy to answer them.

Any questions?

Because I think that would be more useful.

So we haven't penciled that out exactly, but that topic has come up, and we have, unless we're told we can't do that for some reason, we probably would go down that road.

Okay.

So what are the structures that you're looking at putting on these two pieces, these two parcels?

You also have your own unit, but it's a little smaller building form, more like a townhome, but it's a condo structure, four stories typically.

Could you share, if possible, sort of what your success has been in bringing individuals or families who qualify for the affordable housing to those units that you've already done up there?

But we did create, essentially, I believe it was about 10 or 12 affordable units right across the street, across Timberwood.

You believe they were actually, they went to market and stayed in the market in that way.

I know they would have gone to market for the affordable housing there is the under the old code there wasn't my vision where if it wasn't in a certain period of time you could go back I can't tell you for sure they all got occupied I would certainly think given how the market was in the past number of years that folks flocked to them and bought them I hope they did

Sure.

But I've done lots of projects where they've bought townhomes or been donated, and that is an excellent path.

That's helping you, that would have driven you to that to come before us to request that change?

So we've changed our patterns over the 25 years and that's just part of the change here I think.

and then realized that later there could have been a legitimate commercial need for small commercial retail for those people.

I think that's why it works.

Good?

Commissioner Carrazana?

All my questions have been answered.

Commissioner Moore?

Great.

I'm just kind of curious if that has affected the architecture of these.

In fact, VDOT will not let us use data from the kind of the COVID era peak work from home because it's skewed because of that.

If it seems like it's been, you didn't say that it was universal, that everybody was over calculating their need for improvements, but it seems like

The growth continues, but I would speculate that the trend in increased traffic per user here is a curve that sort of flattens a little bit rather than hold straight.

The volume of traffic on the roads seems to have increased beyond the capacity those roads were built for and the proffers were able to handle.

So when other people develop around, Green County puts in a thousand new houses, people who can meet to Albemarle County, that's traffic.

that were also projections in some cases, which were probably projected high.

I think that's probably what

You are, okay.

it's amazing how dark that commercial area is and how many dark areas there are and you know where you're crossing the road where it's dark where there's really not any pedestrian travel at all and so when you're thinking about how people would like to move and where they're not moving I encourage you to use the data that's out there for for pedestrians because it is kind of shocking that something called a town center has such little pedestrian traffic

Do you have to be like a Strava member to have it recorded?

If you carry around one of these guys in your pocket, the data from this is anonymized and has been available for, you know, they can sort of tell by the speed at which you are moving with your cell phone, whether you're walking or whether you're, you know, so there's data that's out there about pedestrian travel that can sort of figure out, you know, where people are going.

Anybody like to open this up?

not that it hasn't been available.

And so we don't, I think writing off huge areas of the development area is just residential only is a problem unless we make those adaptable.

You know, the recent realities, I guess.

But in terms of this proposal, I'm in full support based off of what has been justified.

and of course in Crozet they have access to commercial not too far away but north 29 there's not a lot and we're building all these communities so I do think that we need to keep in mind of that that just eliminating commercial because right now is not viable we lose the opportunity in the future so I think we need to be cautious about that.

the market and just understanding the local market, but the regional and national markets and what we're seeing in terms of that kind of thing.

I was going to bring just that point up later because in town we have coal star.

Yeah.

And then sort of talk about what does that look like for communities with the sort of business mix that we're starting to see around here.

Stonefield I guess would be another option or another example where they've added the residential.

So that there are decisions that are starting to be made because of our market.

Yeah, right, exactly.

But I think we're going to be hard pressed to see that it's just sort of replicate what's happening on the outskirts of Richmond.

And to be fair, I'm not so sure we should.

They're not they're not a one single jurisdiction that's going to be able to sort of sustain that kind of those kind of national national businesses.

And I just, I don't know what we can do in terms of our design standards or what we are doing in terms of our design standards to make sure that when the market changes again in 20 years that we're ready for it and we're not stuck with a use that doesn't make sense anymore.

Nathan Moore?

I think we would do really well for some data to kind of better understand that and see what we can do to build the neighborhoods and communities.

All right, if not, would anybody like to make a motion?

All right, do we have a second?

All right, could you call the roll, please?

Mr. Moore.

Mr. Moore.

Mr. Carrazana.

Aye.

Mr. Missel.

Aye.

Mr. Clayborne.

Aye.

Mr. Murray.

Aye.

Mr. Bivins.

Aye.

Thank you.

Any commissioners have any reports to share?

If you have questions about that resolution, then let me know.

Because ours was canceled.

I was talking about that, but I forgot the date.

Okay.

Will the clerk send that to us?

Thank you, everybody.

Review the Board of Supervisors meeting, October 1.

They were changing the future land use map to show the sweet spot property, the properties sort of next to the sea rezoning that we considered, what was that last month, to change that from an industrial designation to, or it was a heavy industrial designation, to a light industrial office flex.

This is different than what the applicant came to us asking for, right?

Really detailed a lot of the changes that have been made.

That's a summary of changes that are made in the version of the plan that they will vote on tomorrow?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, so they're all in there.

And then there's also combined some of the ones that the board had made on October 1st.

So that they all know these are all the changes and they're in the document.

Yes, ma'am.

All right.

Can you elaborate a little bit on changes that might've occurred that allow the applicant to make their own changes to the comprehensive plan?

Yeah, you're talking about the citizen initiated conference plan.

Yeah.

So we're looking at this process and we'll try and bring that back to the board and to you all in short order.

and Citizens Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments did exist at one point, correct?

There's a lot of nuance and I'm not really prepared to get into all of it tonight but we want to try and come back with a good flexible process that can meet multiple tutor needs.

Is that being incorporated into the AC44 tomorrow or is that something that you're going to be developing?

I remember I'm having a hard time giving you an exact answer, but we did.

that policy or that language to then allow that to happen in the AC44.

And that's why it's there.

So it wasn't in our, so that's going to be outlined in the information that you send us as one of the items that was a change.

Are you asking, are we adding in whole cloth or we, you know?

There was the idea of,

That was a sweet spot conversation.

We also talked about the citizen-initiated.

to reduce the, I think that Mr. Murray, among others, brought up a fair amount of discussion about, hey, the criteria that you have for, you know, potentially taking property out of the development area.

That was a swap.

That was a swap.

Or conversely take one out.

And the language that I'm talking about is something I would be bringing to you after the plans.

It wasn't something that was in our conversations.

Nor has it been something that's been drafted yet.

OK, so it's not being adopted.

No, it is not being adopted by the conference plan.

That's the clarification that we're looking for.

Thank you, sorry.

It's just the ability to ask and not have to wait four or five years.

I'm just trying to get the clarification of where is that in the process and is that being voted on tomorrow by the board?

It is not being voted on by the board.

So that part of that discussion and how we develop that policy is still to be determined along with other initiatives and goals that we have set within the plan.

There will still be public hearings on it.

So regulations that we adopt that come through the commission would follow that same path.

I didn't see anything in the summary of document changes from revised September 2025 that speaks to this, correct?

we'll develop a policy that will happen outside the adoption of the plan.

So what there to be clarity on that,

But you will have an opportunity in the future.

I would look forward to it.

Let's see, any new business, old business, or items for follow-up?

Is that okay?

Thank you all.