Leesburg planning commission continues in‑depth review of zoning ordinance rewrite — uses and standards

The Leesburg Planning Commission continued an in‑depth review of the town’s zoning ordinance rewrite on May 15, focusing on Article 3 (uses) and the draft standards in divisions 11 through 16.

Staff framed the effort as advancing the Legacy Leesburg town plan by modernizing use categories, clarifying limited‑use and special‑exception standards, and aligning the code with the town’s character designations. The rewrite replaces detailed, itemized use lists with character‑based categories; staff asked commissioners whether proposed standards should be relaxed, tightened, or supplemented.

Commission discussion covered multiple use categories and standards. Commissioners raised format and clarity issues, including whether limited‑use standards should appear separately from special‑exception standards and whether redundant text could be consolidated. Commissioners asked staff to ensure that where a use is not permitted in a district the text and tables do not create ambiguity.

Group living and congregate housing: Commissioners asked why congregate housing language appears in sections that do not permit the use in residential districts. Staff explained the draft organizes use standards by category and the corresponding use table indicates where group living is permitted; the placement reflects a character‑based approach rather than a guarantee of permissibility in every district.

Continuing care and parking ratios: Commissioners extensively discussed standards for continuing care retirement communities (independent living, assisted living, nursing). Staff noted draft open‑space and parking minimums were drawn from research and prior applications; for example, one referenced jurisdiction uses 0.75 open‑space units per dwelling. Commissioners said independent living residents should have dedicated parking and asked staff to return with empirical parking studies and options for visitor parking standards. One developer’s feedback, staff said, suggested some standards may overstate actual parking demand.

Facility operations and oversight: For congregate‑housing and transitional facilities, commissioners questioned whether a facility manager must be on‑site 24/7. Staff said the draft requires a facility manager on duty during normal business hours and allows off‑hour on‑call arrangements, reflecting standards elsewhere and the operational models discussed in prior rezoning applications.

Home occupations and accessory uses: Commissioners debated a long list of prohibited home occupations (for example, funeral‑related businesses were included as prohibited uses). Several commissioners suggested revisiting that list to focus restrictions on measurable impacts (traffic, parking, noise) rather than specific trades. Staff noted the draft contains both categorical prohibitions and operational limits (floor area, employees, traffic generation) and offered to return with a refined list and deeper analysis.

Temporary uses: Staff reviewed proposed duration and frequency limits for temporary uses (farmers markets, seasonal sales, outdoor dining, special events). Commissioners recommended clarifying the table’s two dimensions (maximum events per year and days per event), and suggested changes: increase special events from 4 to 6 per year with a 10‑day cap, and allow temporary outdoor dining in two 90‑day seasons (2 x 90), rather than a single 180‑day continuous block. Staff will revise the draft table and add clearer definitions (for example, distinguishing when a temporary use permit is required for tents larger than 900 sq ft).

Telecommunications, utilities and other reserved items: Division 15 (telecom) and several special‑exception standards are marked “reserved” pending further staff work. Commissioners asked staff to return with details on rooftop equipment coverage limits, mobile/temporary telecom testing facilities, and legal constraints where utilities possess condemnation authority or state regulatory preemption.

Next steps and staff commitments: Staff agreed to consolidate redundant standards, provide data and references supporting parking ratios (including ITE and jurisdictional comparisons), revisit the home‑occupation prohibited list, refine temporary‑use definitions and permit triggers, and circulate a revised draft before the commission’s June recap. The commission plans a recap session following the summer break to review articles 1–3 together before moving on to article 4.

The review session identified numerous technical edits and policy questions but did not produce formal votes; staff will incorporate the commission’s feedback into the next draft and return with specific data on parking, open‑space aggregation for continuing care facilities, and telecom provisions.