Crozet Park’s Big Expansion Plans

February 6, 2026
Back to Blog
Featured image for “Crozet Park’s Big Expansion Plans”

I unfortunately missed the CCA (Crozet Community Association) meeting a few weeks ago if anyone attended and wants to add their thoughts, please do do in the comments, or email me and I’ll be happy to grant you space to publish your thoughts.

We need a more comprehensive Crozet Park, and they’ve done a service with their FAQ and work to grow the Park. As I note below, the Park is not an island and needs better connecting infrastructure. This is a long post, and I’ve received some help from AI at the end.

I didn’t make it, so I asked Melissa Boucher and the Park to answer a few questions. They were gracious enough to make time to answer. (I have a few thoughts and context at the end). Short story – I sent them a bunch of questions; they responded with a detailed FAQ. The asterisk indicates a question not answered in the eventual FAQ, but answered via email.

Does this plan include taking down the old radio station?*

It does not! The Community Building (old radio station) is an integral part of Park programming and will remain such.


Are you going to do a traffic study?

Yes. A traffic and speed study was completed in 2021 and again in October 2024 as part of the site planning and County review process. The findings informed the current site design, including entrance and exit locations, internal circulation, and safety considerations.

Will there be a new entrance/exit on Hill Top?

Yes. The Park has requested County approval for a new entrance/exit on Hill Top Street as part of the site plan. This additional access point is intended to improve circulation, safety, and traffic flow in and around the Park. To the east of the community building (aka radio building), additional landscaping will be provided along Indigo Rd. to act as an activity buffer for our neighbors to the north.


Is Parkside Village represented as trees in the illustration?*

The photo included is an architectural rendering, not meant to reflect everything around the Park accurately (houses, trees, etc.). However, and we can discuss further, we have discussed with Parkside Village HOA to plant a landscape buffer of trees and shrubs on the Park’s north boundary along Hill Top. — Jim’s comment: anytime you see anything put forth by any developer, it’s a good practice to consider it to be an artful interpretation, not a thing to take seriously, and certainly not something by which to form conclusions or solid opinions.


Is the current proposed plan any different than what was discussed in 2023?


As the project has moved forward, the Park Board has continued to work with County staff, engineers, architects, and community stakeholders to refine the design, respond to feedback, and meet regulatory requirements. While the core vision remains the same, details have been adjusted as part of a thoughtful and iterative planning process with multiple stakeholders.


Any conversation about non-car-centric infrastructure?

The Park Board has consistently emphasized the importance of pedestrian and bicycle access. Within the Park itself, where the Park has authority to act, significant effort has gone into planning to expand sidewalks, improve internal circulation, and add bicycle racks and storage near the new facility. These elements were specifically raised during the County’s site plan review and have been incorporated into the latest design. Further, the Park’s long term financial sustainability plans alongside the CPAFC include working with the Trails Crew to continue to invest in trails infrastructure in and around the Park.

Jim’s comment: I have said and written consistently that to grow the Park with no improvements to the connective infrastructure is an utter failure of planning an implementation, and 100% counter to the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Failure is an option, I guess.

“sidewalk” on Hill Top in 2022
Kids riding bicycles to schools in Crozet. Note the terrible roads and infrastrucutre
Kids riding on bikes in the road Photo credit: Ella Duncan
“sidewalk” on Hill Top in 2024
The Future CPAFC – Three-Pager December 2025Download

Thoughts on the County’s Comp Plan, infrastructure, climate, and healthy living. Note that this is written by AI after quite a bit of back and forth.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure

The county prioritizes multimodal transportation options—particularly walking and biking—to connect neighborhoods, Activity Centers, and parks.

  • Transportation Chapter: This chapter aims to deliver safe, comfortable, and accessible options for all users. Key actions include:
    • Developing a Multimodal Transportation Plan with a Modal Emphasis Map to link vital destinations.
    • Identifying and filling gaps in the pedestrian network, especially around schools and community facilities.
    • Ensuring bike facilities are separated from vehicular traffic where feasible.
    • Requiring bike parking for all multi-family and non-residential site plans.
  • Community Design Guidelines: These guidelines provide specific urban design goals, such as separating pedestrian infrastructure from vehicles and creating “Placemaking Streets” within Activity Centers to enhance safety.
  • Development Areas: The plan emphasizes “compact and connected” development to make walking and biking more feasible for daily needs.

Healthy Living

Healthy living is addressed through a combination of public health initiatives, access to nature, and the provision of community facilities.

  • Parks, Recreation, & Open Space Chapter: This section focuses on providing equitable access to a network of parks and trails to support active lifestyles.
    • The County goal is to have more community members in Development Areas within a quarter-mile of a public park or greenway.
  • Community Facilities & Infrastructure Chapter:
    • Community Health: Objective 11 aims to increase equitable access to healthcare, programs, and activities that benefit well-being.
    • Food Systems: Objective 12 focuses on improving access to healthy, affordable local food by allowing community gardens and farmers’ markets in more locations.
    • Community Resilience Hubs: These hubs are envisioned to provide essential services like health clinics, food pantries, and exercise classes.

Climate Policy

Climate action is a core priority of the Board of Supervisors and is integrated across all AC44 chapters.

  • Environmental Stewardship Chapter: This is the primary location for climate-related policies.
    • Targets: The County aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 45% from 2008 levels by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
    • Mitigation: Strategies include reducing transportation emissions through compact development and increasing carbon sequestration by protecting large forest blocks.
    • Adaptation: The County is developing a Climate Resilience Plan (through the “Resilient Together” project) to address hazards like extreme heat, flooding, and drought.
  • Climate Action Plan (2020): This plan is adopted by reference and provides the specific implementation framework for five key sectors: Transportation & Land Use, Buildings, Renewable Energy, Sustainable Materials, and Landscape/Agriculture.

Core Project Portals

Adopted Documents (Officially Part of AC44)

These documents have been formally adopted and require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change:

Referenced & Regional Resources

These studies were used to inform AC44’s recommendations and provide additional technical background:

Thoughts on connective infrastructure

The prompt to Gemini AI

As an expert on land use in Virginia, and specifically Crozet within Albemarle County, give a succinct explanation, citing sources, as to why developers do not need to provide connecting infrastructure from their new developments to existing infrastructure.

The answer, with links added by me:

In Virginia, and specifically within growth areas like Crozet, the inability of local governments to mandate that developers fund or build infrastructure connecting their projects to the broader community network is a direct result of the interplay between Dillon’s Rule and the Proffer Reform Act of 2016.

1. The Legal Foundation: Dillon’s Rule

Virginia is one of the strictest Dillon’s Rule states in the nation, a legal principle adopted by the Virginia Supreme Court in 1896 (City of Winchester v. Redmond). Under this rule, local governments (like Albemarle County) possess only those powers expressly granted to them by the Virginia General Assembly.

(Calling this out ~ Jim) Because the State Code does not explicitly grant localities the power to require “off-site” infrastructure improvements as a condition of “by-right” development (projects that already meet existing zoning), Albemarle cannot legally force a developer to build a road or sidewalk that extends beyond their property line to reach an existing network.

2. Why Proffers are “No Longer Allowed” (The 2016 Reform)

While developers can still technically “proffer” (voluntarily offer) improvements during a rezoning process, the Proffer Reform Act of 2016 (Senate Bill 549) effectively ended the practice of localities requesting broad infrastructure connections.

  • When it Changed: The law went into effect on July 1, 2016, creating Virginia Code § 15.2-2303.4. (also related: Charlottesville Tomorrow, 2019 – New proffer law creates uncertainties for developers, localities)
  • The “Specifically Attributable” Standard: Before 2016, localities could negotiate for “fair share” contributions to regional infrastructure (e.g., a new bridge in Crozet or a road extension). The 2016 law deemed any proffer “unreasonable” unless the need for the improvement is “specifically attributable” to that exact residential development.
  • The “Direct Benefit” Requirement: Even if an impact is identified, the developer must receive a “direct and material benefit” from the improvement. This makes it legally perilous for Albemarle County staff to even suggest that a developer connect to a nearby trail or road, as doing so could trigger a lawsuit where the County carries the burden of proof. (Jim – wonder if this is real, or an AI lie.)

3. Impact on Crozet Infrastructure

In Crozet, this creates a “connectivity gap.” Under the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance, a developer is only required to build the infrastructure within their own site. (Jim — see: Pleasant Green)

  • The Connection Gap: If a new development in Crozet sits 500 feet away from an existing sidewalk or road, the County cannot compel the developer to bridge that 500-foot gap because the 2016 law classifies that as an “off-site” impact that is not “specifically attributable” solely to those new residents.
  • The Master Plan Conflict: While the Crozet Master Plan (updated in 2021) calls for high connectivity, the Plan is a “guidance document,” not a law. Because of Dillon’s Rule, the Master Plan’s vision for connected neighborhoods cannot override the state’s limitations on developer requirements.

Summary of Sources

Share:

Something to say?

  1. Reply

    Thanks, Jim, for posting this and doing all of the work to put this together. Reading through this, I kept wondering when all of this may start. Following the link to the park’s FAQ, the answer is, “With sufficient early fundraising, CPAFC construction could start as early as the end of 2026 and take 12-18 months to complete.” That is proposed as a best case scenario, so some time in 2027 is probably more likely. However, if it is like other projects around us, it will be talked about for years but then one day the heavy machinery shows up and it is too late to make any requests. Permanent landscape changes will happen quickly after that point.

  2. Reply

    I was at the meeting and identified myself as a resident of Parkside Village. I was mostly happy with the updated plans, especially the idea that the organization will partner with the Center at Belvedere in Cville to offer classes, etc. I have been searching for activities for my in-laws, and soon I’ll want activities for myself, so this sounds promising. I did ask whether “Old Hilltop” would be improved (widened, sidewalk added) to accommodate greater use, and they said, as you’ve explained here, that they have no control over that. I really wish that part of the infrastructure could be taken into account and required to be improved. They did say that because of a vision limitation to the right (as cars come up the hill), they might have to limit the use of that exit, but they were hoping to get an exception or waiver.

    In general, I was pleased that the proposed second exit was moved from their original idea on Indigo, and that the footprint of the facility was greatly reduced. There will be less impact on the pond and park than was evident in the original plans.

    It is also worth noting that this is a $18 million project, and they are currently in the quiet phase of fundraising, looking for those big donors and partners. They plan to raise $13 million and get a $5 million bank loan. We’re a long ways off from this becoming reality.