Middleburg planning commission opens comprehensive-plan review; Federal Street, water and short-term rentals highlighted

The Middleburg Planning Commission opened a review of the town's comprehensive plan during a combined work session and regular meeting, citing the plan's 2019 adoption and the commission's five-year review obligation under state code.

The session centered on whether the plan's language and priorities remain accurate, with commissioners and staff noting out-of-date references to a Mixed Use Village (MUV) tied to the Salamander property, continuing questions about a proposed northern annexation, and local infrastructure needs on Federal Street. Will (planning staff) told commissioners, “It is not a regulatory document,” underscoring that the comprehensive plan sets a vision while zoning and town code implement regulations.

The plan matters because it guides how the town steers development, public facilities and incentives over roughly a 20-year outlook and helps inform decisions on special-use permits and zoning enforcement. Commissioners said the review should be done chapter by chapter, with updated demographic and housing figures provided ahead of each meeting.

Federal Street emerged as the most frequently raised local concern. Lewis Shields, owner of Hastening Antiques and Designs, told the commission he has operated in Middleburg for decades and recently expanded on Federal Street. “I have someone come into my store or gallery every week this says I did not even know Federal Street existed,” Shields said, adding that small chalkboard signs do not sufficiently direct visitors and that sidewalks and a marked crosswalk would make the street feel like part of the town and improve safety.

Commissioners and staff agreed Federal Street presents multiple problems — parking, pedestrian safety, lack of sidewalks on portions of the corridor, and limited private investment to carry out large-scale redevelopment. Will said the town has pursued external funding in the past (a state grant request tied to school safety and a crosswalk was not funded) and has had recent conversations with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) about the Federal & Pendleton intersection. He said VDOT conducted traffic counts and that an all-way stop is a possible remedy, but VDOT resists all-way stops where traffic volumes are highly imbalanced.

On pedestrian crossings, Will noted a regulatory constraint: the town cannot install a painted crosswalk at an intersection unless it connects to existing pedestrian facilities on both sides. That limitation means crosswalk installation would typically require accompanying sidewalk construction on the missing corners.

Water supply and drought risk also drew attention. Commissioners said the town has moved previously to conservation measures during droughts and that well-level monitoring showed less-than-expected recharge; the transcript records concerns about possible future rationing. Commissioners asked staff to supply updated hydrologic and well-level data as part of the population and housing chapter review.

Short-term rentals were discussed as a policy area where the comprehensive plan could provide guidance even if zoning changes are constrained by recent state legislation. One council member offered illustrative goals — for example, limiting short-term rentals to no more than 30% of homes in a neighborhood, capping rental durations, or preventing permits from “running with the property” — and asked whether the plan could include high-level policy guidance to inform special-use permit decisions.

Storm drainage and off-street parking that fills drainage ditches (cited for Ridgeview and other neighborhoods) were raised as recurring problems; commissioners observed the town code may lack clear enforcement mechanisms for certain ditch encroachments. Commissioners asked staff to clarify the legal tools available for monitoring and enforcement.

Commissioners also discussed the Mixed Use Village (MUV) zoning near the Salamander property. Will and others noted the MUV remains an established zoning district with proffers attached to the land; those proffers transfer to subsequent owners, meaning a future owner could develop under the existing proffers even if the current owner does not intend to pursue the project. Commissioners suggested revising plan text to reflect that the MUV remains on the books but may not be imminent.

For process, staff recommended a chapter-by-chapter schedule; commissioners agreed to begin by reviewing Chapters 2 and 3 (Natural Environmental Resources and History and Historic Resources) at the next meeting and to defer rewording the executive summary until after chapter edits. Commissioners also noted the comp plan should record prior commission recommendations (for example, on height and offsets) so successors understand past direction.

Votes at a glance: The commission approved the minutes of the Jan. 27, 2025 regular meeting (motion and second not specified in the transcript; chair called “All in favor,” followed by three “Aye” responses).