Chesterfield staff reviews ZOMOD overhaul and key changes ahead of Sept. 17 public hearing

Chesterfield County planning staff on Wednesday gave the Board of Supervisors a work-session briefing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Modernization, known as ZOMOD, and outlined the changes, outstanding issues and next steps ahead of a public hearing set for Sept. 17.

ZOMOD, a rewrite of Chapter 19 of the county code, is intended to be the legal “toolbox” that implements the comprehensive plan; staff said the rewrite updates standards the county has used since the 1970s and aims to reduce repeated exceptions under the old conditional‑use plan development process. Rachel Chieppa, who leads the ZOMOD project for county planning staff, told the board, “The zoning ordinance tells you what you can do, where you can do it, and how it can be done.”

The draft is the product of a multi‑year effort that began after the 2019 comprehensive plan update: staff released successive drafts, held six community meetings and library office hours, engaged an advisory committee and responded to more than 350 formal public comments. Chieppa said draft 4 — the version now before the board with planning‑commission recommendations — is nearly 500 pages and was designed to be more navigable in digital form, with links and hover definitions to help readers.

Major changes summarized for the board include new, renamed and consolidated zoning districts (examples include RC for rural community, SR semi‑rural, SC suburban community, SU small‑lot subdivision, TR transition residential, UR urban residential, AR alternative residential, ECR employment, EG general employment and WD warehousing/distribution). Steve Hoss, an assistant director on the ZOMOD team, described RC as a new option “that will allow 5‑acre lots in subdivisions in the rural area, if someone were to zone into that.”

Staff stressed conversion rules intended to limit sudden density increases from the ordinance change. Thomas Jenkins, the county’s zoning administrator, explained that existing parcels will not automatically get smaller‑lot development by right: subdividing or changing an unsubdivided property to achieve higher lot yield would require a zoning application and board approval. ZOMOD also creates a transition process for existing conditional‑use plan developments: most CUPDs and previously proffered conditions will continue to control where they remain silent on a ZOMOD requirement.

The draft adds or tightens many standards: explicit amenity‑space requirements for residential projects (a menu of allowed features, including preserved natural areas and trails), clarified trail materials (countable paths must be asphalt or crushed stone at least 4 feet wide), new minimum buffer widths in some locations (examples cited by staff: 50 feet between neighborhood business and residential uses, 75 feet for some urban residential edges, 100 feet adjacent to industrial uses) and new street/parking standards for townhome and small‑lot projects (discussion centered on requiring 32‑foot pavements to allow on‑street parking, an optional 34‑foot pavement with lower parking minimums, and parity rules so the combination of garage plus driveway cannot exceed the required parking allocation).

Staff reviewed proposed parking computations and garage standards. Draft 4 originally counted half of a garage bay for parking‑requirement calculations; staff reported that produced higher off‑site parking needs in some test cases. Planning staff said they have suggested lowering the townhouse parking ratio from 2.5 to 2.2 spaces per unit in some configurations, allowing an 8‑foot garage door (instead of 9 feet) and reducing the required clear garage floor depth from 10x20 to 10x19 feet to reflect common vehicle sizes.

Several supervisors pressed staff on communications and conversion mapping. Chieppa and other staff described a conversion mapping tool that shows how each parcel’s current zoning would match to a ZOMOD district; staff said they mailed two postcards to every property owner (about 126,000) and used billboards and community meetings to promote the work. One supervisor flagged two parcels in his district that are conservation easements but appeared as residential in the conversion map; staff said they are researching the parcels and anticipate additional corrections between now and the ordinance’s effective date if needed.

Supervisors also debated the rural RC district. Some members pushed back on concerns that a five‑acre subdivision option could encourage dispersed development or increase service demands; supporters said the district provides parity with neighboring jurisdictions and gives landowners a rural subdivision option that can preserve large open areas. Staff repeatedly tied the ZOMOD changes to comprehensive‑plan guidance, saying the plan (and forthcoming Chapter 10 land‑use updates) will indicate where denser zoning tools should be applied.

Other items discussed or clarified during the work session included: the replacement of the CUPD process with a renamed “zoning deviation” procedure that retains the ability to request adjustments but establishes clearer criteria and limits for exceptions; a nonconformity section that follows state law (a 2‑year discontinuance rule for nonconforming uses) and a five‑year grace period for certain industrial uses to continue under previous rules after ordinance adoption; and language that keeps buffers in commonly held open space (for example HOA property), rather than transferring them to private lots where they can be removed.

Board members asked whether staff would provide further outreach or additional work sessions; staff said they can supply updated FAQs and meet individually with supervisors, and reminded the board the Sept. 17 public hearing can be followed immediately by a deferred action or additional work session if the board asks. Chieppa noted the county’s planned timeline: if ZOMOD is adopted, staff intends to proceed with a comprehensive‑plan update (Chapter 10 land‑use and other chapters) to align plan policies and the new ordinance.

Ending: The public hearing is set for Sept. 17; planning staff said they will continue to review conversion data, respond to public questions and consider the board’s requested edits (examples explicitly raised in the work session include the SU buffer adjacent to larger lots, trail surfacing, parking ratios and the garage‑door/garage‑clearance adjustments). Supervisors may schedule additional work sessions or defer action after the Sept. 17 hearing if they want more time to resolve outstanding items.