Albemarle planners, developer outline flexible plans for Reuben Lane rezoning amid questions on access and affordability

Sid Shev, the county’s senior planner, opened a virtual community meeting to review a zoning-map amendment for a 7.35-acre parcel at 2943 Reuben Lane and stressed the session was informational only. “We’re here today to share information about the proposed project, the legislative review process, and then relevant policies and regulations that are applicable from our zoning and comprehensive plan,” Shev said, and asked attendees to provide contact information to be added to the interested‑party list.

The applicant, represented by land‑use attorney and developer Nicole Scrow, described three illustrative layouts submitted with the application: a multifamily option shown in the materials at roughly 120 units, a single‑family attached plan at 58 units and a single‑family detached scenario at 22 units. Scrow and staff said the application plan (the formal submission) caps the rezoning at a maximum density supported by prior traffic analysis and staff review; representatives referred to a working maximum of 110 units for review purposes while noting some illustrative exhibits still show 120.

Why it matters: the parcel sits adjacent to active Holly Hills development and contains environmental constraints — including about 100‑foot stream buffers and areas of steep slopes — that the applicant proposes to reclassify so some slope disturbance could be allowed. Those changes affect buildable area, stormwater and the pedestrian/vehicular connections between the new site and adjacent properties.

The applicant said the site would be accessed through the Holly Hills development (not directly to Hollymeade Drive) and that one or two access options remain subject to easement negotiations and VDOT traffic requirements. Neighbors asked repeatedly whether an emergency connector would become a through‑street; staff and the applicant clarified that existing Holly Hills connections include an emergency access and that direct connection to Hollymeade is blocked by a separate parcel between the sites.

On affordable housing, committee members and the developer debated feasibility. Committee member David warned that deep affordability for for‑sale units is difficult without subsidy, saying, “When Nicole says it’s hard, it means it’s impossible for for‑sale products in particular.” The applicant acknowledged the county’s Places 29 guidance and the updated county affordable‑housing policy, and said meeting the recommended 20% at 60% AMI is challenging for small or for‑sale projects without subsidy or partnerships with nonprofit providers. Staff described the county policy as a strong recommendation tied to rezonings and said application review considers those factors.

What’s next: staff said review comments for the Reuben Lane application will be issued to the applicant by January 20; the applicant may revise the application, proceed to the planning commission, or withdraw. The community advisory committee requested the developer return to the CAC with more detailed plans before any planning‑commission hearing so neighbors can provide informed input.

The meeting closed with no formal action taken; any final rezoning would require separate planning‑commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings.