Leesburg planning commission continues zoning rewrite, debates nonconformities, enforcement and definitions

Leesburg — The Leesburg Planning Commission on [date not specified] continued its review of a first draft of a zoning ordinance rewrite, concentrating on Article 7 (nonconformities), Article 8 (enforcement, violations and penalties) and Article 9 (word usage and definitions).

Director David framed the session, saying the rewrite project began in 2023 and that the first draft was released March 6, 2025, followed by a 60‑day public comment period. Mike Watkins, the town's zoning administrator, joined staff in explaining key points, including protections for legally established uses and structures that no longer meet current standards, the burden of proof on property owners to document lawful preexisting status, and the town's enforcement tools.

The commission spent the bulk of discussion on Article 7, which addresses nonconformities — uses, structures, lots or site features that were lawful when established but no longer conform because the ordinance changed. Staff described typical examples (a business now located in a residential zone, a building not meeting current setbacks or height limits, smaller lots created under prior rules, and legacy signs). According to staff, nonconforming uses may continue if they were lawful when created, but expansions generally must meet current requirements and a nonconforming use can be lost if the use is vacant or inactive for two or more years. Nonconforming structures may be rebuilt within the same footprint if destroyed by causes beyond the owner's control, typically within two years.

Commissioners repeatedly raised the question of wording and fairness. Commissioner Matt asked why the draft uses the term “nonconforming” rather than the colloquial “grandfathered.” Several commissioners suggested adding the modifier “legal” (for example, “legal nonconforming use”) in the definitions to reduce perceived stigma. Director David and the town attorney said the term reflects state code terminology; the town attorney noted that the legal standard requires the property owner to establish that the use was lawfully established.

The panel also pressed staff on what documentation would satisfy the burden of proof. Watkins and staff listed typical examples included in the draft as acceptable evidence: permits, licenses, tax records, receipts, business records, photographs, plats and plans, bills, utility information, assessment records and sworn affidavits from persons with personal knowledge. Staff emphasized the inquiry is fact‑specific (for example, whether an alteration “increases” a nonconformity depends on the particular standard not being met) and warned against a closed checklist that might exclude types of evidence that could be persuasive in older cases.

Several commissioners sought clarity on special cases: whether a nonconforming use transfers with a property sale (staff said use continuity, not ownership, controls the two‑year test for uses), whether a multi‑year construction period would be treated as abandonment (staff said they would look at whether the owner was diligently pursuing permits and construction), and how the standards operate in the historic district versus newer areas. The zoning administrator said the historic district’s design guidelines often change the practical analysis for signs and exterior alterations.

On Article 8, commissioners asked about enforcement procedures for civil and criminal zoning violations and how criminal violations would proceed; staff said criminal violations would require prosecution. Commissioners identified several typos and requested precise cross‑references where the draft points to other town standards.

Article 9 (word usage and definitions) drew comments about consistency and clarity (for example, adding “legal” to nonconforming categories, making the comp plan definition explicitly include small‑area plans, and clarifying whether rules of construction should appear in alphabetical order). Staff said some glossary terms were carried forward from the existing ordinance and that consultants used NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) and the American Planning Association's land‑based classification system as references.

Staff closed with next steps: produce a public comment summary when the commission reconvenes, complete placeholder sections in a second draft (sign regulations, attainable housing, tree preservation, multiple‑use standards and the Crescent District), conduct deep‑dive sessions on identified topics, and then prepare a planning commission draft for eventual recommendation to council. Staff indicated a goal of a more complete draft in the fall and noted November 6 as an optimistic target for the planning commission draft, with the possibility of moving into the new year.

Quotes in context

"We started this project back in 2023," Director David said, describing the project's timeline and public comment period. Mike Watkins, the zoning administrator, summarized the nonconformity protections and enforcement approach: "If the use was legally legal when it was created, it's a nonconforming use." Commissioner Matt asked about labeling: "Why do we call it nonconformity, instead of calling grandfathered?" Watkins and staff explained the draft follows state code terminology and that staff would add wording for "legal nonconforming" in definitions to align other entries.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to approve minutes of July 17 (mover and seconder not specified in the record). Chair called for the vote; the motion passed (vote recorded as "Aye"; Candace was noted as absent for that item). Notes: approval of minutes recorded in meeting transcript; specific individual vote names were not provided.

- Motion to close/adjourn (mover and seconder not specified). Motion carried on voice vote: "Aye." (details: standard meeting close; no ordinance action taken.)

Ending

No ordinance provisions were adopted at the meeting. The commission completed a first pass review of the three articles and requested clarifying edits, typos corrections and clearer cross‑references. Staff will circulate a public comment report and refined draft material before the commission's next substantive review sessions.