Leesburg planning commission reviews Article 4: parking rules, tree preservation, lighting and noise limits

The Leesburg Planning Commission on July 10, 2025 spent its work session reviewing Article 4 of a proposed zoning ordinance rewrite, focusing on development standards for parking, tree preservation, sustainability incentives, outdoor lighting and noise regulation, and how those rules would apply downtown and in the H1 Old and Historic overlay district.

The discussion mattered because Article 4 translates many policy choices — how much parking new buildings must provide, whether developers can buy out of on-site parking, what kinds of tree retention are required and who maintains plantings, and how ambient or intermittent noise is measured — into enforceable ordinance language that will shape redevelopment downtown and housing feasibility across Leesburg.

Department of Community Development staff led the presentation and answered commissioners’ questions. Director David told the commission that a separate application about Leesburg Gateway would be heard July 17 rather than that night: “Leesburg Gateway was gonna be heard tonight on July 10, but Leesburg Gateway work session is actually on July 17,” (Director David). Mike Watkins (Department of Community Development) summarized the rewrite’s Article 4 structure and repeatedly offered to review and refine specific provisions: “We can certainly take a look at that,” (Mike Watkins) in response to commissioner questions about application submittals and modification demonstrations.

Staff overview and structure Staff said Article 4 organizes development standards into multiple divisions. Division 17 covers general purpose and applicability. Division 18 addresses parking and alternatives (including shared parking and payment-in-lieu). Division 19 addresses tree preservation, landscaping, buffering and a new sustainability-incentive point system. Division 20 covers outdoor lighting; signage remains a separate workstream to be completed later. Staff noted they are aligning some standards with recent state law changes and with county practices (for example, parking metrics and tree-preservation references).

Payment-in-lieu and downtown parking A central portion of the meeting focused on the payment-in-lieu of parking provision that applies within the H1 Old and Historic District and within 500 feet of the town parking facility. Staff explained the current mechanics: owners within 500 feet may not be required to provide on-site parking for certain conversions; for new development or larger projects the option exists to purchase spaces instead of supplying them on-site, subject to limits (multifamily purchases capped at 10 spaces, and residential parcels of 4,000 square feet or less have a different rule). The existing payment-in-lieu fee has historically been $8,000 per space; staff noted a previous council discussion had proposed doubling that amount to $16,000 but the council at that time did not change the fee.

Commissioners debated the policy tradeoffs. Several commissioners said the payment-in-lieu fund has preserved historic downtown parcels and enabled infill projects that otherwise might have been demolished, while others said the existing fund balance (staff cited roughly $400,000) buys very few structured-parking spaces and therefore is not sufficient to build a parking deck. Commissioners discussed the policy purpose: whether payment-in-lieu should be retained as a “tool in the toolbox” to support downtown investment, restricted to commercial uses only, or eliminated for residential uses because of impacts on homebuyers.

Straw poll and direction The commission held a straw poll on whether to keep the payment-in-lieu provision “as written.” The recorded straw poll was not a formal vote but the chair recorded the count as three in favor, one opposed and one not voting (Commissioner Tuck). Staff said the payment-in-lieu provision is limited in current practice (historical take-ups are relatively small, staff said about 300 spaces sold since the provision’s inception decades ago) and that removing a zoning provision would prevent applicants from using it by right in the future; applicants could still seek waivers or legislative relief through council under existing processes.

Parking ratios and residential concerns Commissioners discussed specific parking ratios proposed in the draft. Staff said the multifamily minimum in the draft is 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit for three-bedroom units; commissioners asked staff to research both local data and owners’/HOA concerns before recommending any change. Commissioners also raised that garages and tandem driveways are often not used as expected (owners convert or fill garages), and discussed options such as clarifying whether garages and driveways count toward required parking credits.

Tree preservation, sustainability incentives and maintenance Staff described Division 19’s approach: tree preservation language is being finalized to reflect recent state law changes, with some tree-retention and canopy incentives implemented as a points system in a sustainability incentives subsection. Commissioners asked for an explicit cross-reference to maintenance requirements and for clarity on whether private property owners (not developers) would be responsible for long-term maintenance of retained or newly planted trees. Staff said design and construction standards will more directly address tree-protection and maintenance practices (root pruning, aeration, protective zones) while the zoning text will reference retention thresholds.

Lighting, string lights and signage Division 20 proposes fully shielded, downward-facing (full cut-off) lighting as the default. Sign rules remain under revision, and staff noted an existing allowance for string lights currently sits in the sign code; commissioners requested a cross-reference and asked that outdoor dining and restaurants be able to use appropriate string/accent lighting in more than just the downtown core. Staff agreed to move or cross-link string-light guidance into Division 20 and to clarify where permits or allowances are required.

Noise thresholds and sources Staff said the draft continues to use decibel thresholds measured at property lines tied to land-use categories (for example, residential: 55 dB continuous at property line; commercial/industrial higher thresholds). Commissioners asked staff to clarify definitions for “continuous” and “impact” noise (how long is “prolonged” for continuous), and to consider source-based limits for things the town can control (for example, on-site, 24-hour generators, refrigerated truck idling or mechanical equipment). Staff said some sources (for example certain utility substations or regional aircraft noise) may be outside local zoning authority and may require coordination with other agencies; staff will follow up with legal review and examples from other jurisdictions.

Discussion summary and next steps Commissioners asked staff to: (1) return with clearer application checklists showing required exhibits that demonstrate what the ordinance requires versus what a modification provides; (2) research parking ratios and gather input from multifamily developers and HOA representatives on adequacy of required spaces; (3) provide clearer cross-references for lighting/string-light allowances and sign rules; (4) finalize tree-retention language and show how maintenance responsibilities will appear in design and construction standards; and (5) clarify noise definitions (continuous vs. impact) and list specific sources the town can regulate. Staff said signage and several other divisions remain outstanding and will return to the commission in coming meetings, and reminded the commission Leesburg Gateway will be heard July 17.

The meeting included nonbinding direction (the straw poll on payment-in-lieu) but no final ordinance adoption; staff will carry the commission’s feedback into subsequent drafts and report back with clarifications and supporting research.