Leesburg commission reviews draft zoning-ordinance changes for decisionmaking, review procedures

The Leesburg Planning Commission used a July 17 work session to continue review of a draft zoning-ordinance rewrite, focusing on Article 5 (roles, responsibilities and administrative officials) and Article 6 (common review and approval procedures).

What the draft covers: Article 5 organizes decisionmakers and administrative roles — the Planning Commission, Board of Architectural Review, Board of Zoning Appeals, the zoning administrator and the floodplain administrator. Article 6 lays out standard procedures for application submittal, completeness review, neighborhood meetings, public-notice requirements and timelines for legislative and administrative reviews.

Commission discussion and key clarifications: Commissioners and staff discussed several specific operational items: - Planning-commission budget and consultant use: Commissioners asked for explicit authority to use a commission-controlled budget to pay for training or outside experts. Staff said the commission does have a line-item budget administered through the Community Development Department and recommended language that allows use of that existing budget without specifying dollar amounts in the ordinance text; procurement rules would still apply. - Zoning administrator duties and response times: The draft sets a 90-day response time for zoning-administrator decisions or determinations. Commissioners asked what happens if the zoning administrator does not act; staff noted the statute-backed remedies (for example, a writ of mandamus) and that the town would apply state code remedies rather than create an administrative shortcut in the ordinance. - Completeness, waivers and acceptance: The draft retains a formal completeness review before an application is accepted. Commissioners pressed staff for tighter rules about what minimal materials must be submitted to begin the review clock and whether certain high-impact items (transportation, utilities, water studies) should be required before the application is accepted. Staff noted applicants can request waivers and that the draft provides staff delegation to grant limited waivers, but agreed to return with clearer guidance on which items staff would not waive for major legislative applications. - Neighborhood meetings: The draft makes neighborhood meetings optional; commissioners discussed whether the meetings should be mandatory for certain applications and concluded the ordinance may not authorize a blanket mandatory requirement. Staff said they would continue to refine the language to strengthen community outreach expectations while remaining consistent with state law. - Application inactivity and withdrawal: Staff described an existing practice of notifying applicants and withdrawing applications for inactivity; commissioners asked staff to preserve that ability while ensuring the town treats applicants fairly during economic downturns. - Floodplain and FEMA references: Commissioners discussed whether the town should permit certain mixed-use residential configurations in floodplain areas (FEMA has updated guidance); staff said the town currently prohibits residential in the local floodplain overlay and that any change would be deliberate and require policy discussion.

Process and next steps: Staff and the commission agreed to return revised wording on several points — budget/consultant language, completeness and waiver standards, and stronger neighborhood-meeting/outreach expectations — before the commission continues its article-by-article review. No formal vote was taken on the ordinance language at the work session.

Ending: The commission will resume review of subsequent articles and incorporate the requested clarifications into a revised draft for future meetings.