Board weighs refining growth-area maps, mixed‑use definitions and service capacity

Culpeper County supervisors spent the March 21 work session reviewing the comprehensive plan’s growth‑area maps and asking staff to return with more detailed, time‑based analyses of infrastructure capacity and clearer definitions of “mixed use.”

Staff member Mr. Cooley told the board the plan’s land‑use vision is to “preserve the predominantly agriculture and rural nature of Culpeper County while providing opportunities for growth in identified areas at the appropriate scale.” He noted the plan (adopted in 2023) identifies four future growth areas and asked for direction on whether to keep, enlarge, shrink or otherwise refine them.

The request mattered because supervisors highlighted large differences between future‑land‑use designations and existing zoning. “If it’s identified in a growth area and is zoned R‑4 … we need to recognize that unless we’re planning on changing the R‑4,” Supervisor Underwood said, pressing staff to show where parcels are zoned R‑districts versus A‑1/RA. Cooley and other staff explained the future‑land‑use map is not a zoning map but can be paired with zoning detail to guide future rezonings.

Supervisors raised infrastructure and timing concerns. “We also have to identify the fact of what our capacity is throughout time to accept growth in these areas,” a supervisor said, asking for time‑based level‑of‑service analysis for roads, water and sewer so growth can be staged without degrading service. Several supervisors pointed to specific roads (Knowles Mill Road, Business 29 intersections) and intersections (Bragg’s Corner) as sites where capacity is limited.

Board members pressed for a tighter definition of “mixed use.” Supervisor Gugino said mixed use should reflect a true mix of residential and retail — not simply a higher‑density residential subdivision — and asked staff to set clearer expectations for the form and zoning districts that constitute mixed use. Mr. Cooley and other staff suggested options such as naming specific zoning districts, using form‑based coding for more precise design guidance, or pairing growth maps with transportation and utility projects.

The board agreed to refer the work to the Planning Commission with a clearly drafted charge. Supervisor Gugino will work with Mr. Cooley to prepare the referral scope and proposed language for the Planning Commission’s review, with staff to return to the board afterward.

The discussion also noted ongoing and recent applications (the Armstrong property rezoning was described as withdrawn) and that staff can produce maps showing parcel‑level zoning inside the growth areas. Supervisors asked that the referral include a request for (a) maps tying future‑land‑use areas to current zoning, (b) a time‑phased level‑of‑service analysis for transportation and utilities, and (c) a refined definition of mixed use for the urban service area.

The board did not adopt any ordinance changes at the session; instead the supervisors directed staff to prepare the materials to send to the Planning Commission.