Leesburg staff previews zoning recodification; tree-conservation rules tied to state code

Leesburg community development staff told the Tree Commission on April 22 that the town is recodifying its entire zoning ordinance and invited the commission and residents to review and comment on a consultant-prepared draft that updates tree conservation and landscaping provisions.

"The town is in the process of recodifying the zoning ordinance," said a member of the community development staff during the commission meeting. Staff said the draft focuses on conservation measures in the zoning text (Article/division cited on the town page) and that technical specifications will be moved into the town's design and construction standards manual for easier reference.

The recodification covers the conservation and landscaping sections previously discussed with the commission. Staff said earlier direction from the commission included more involvement by an urban forester in development review, adjusted bonding for trees in planned developments and re-examining minimum canopy requirements. Staff also emphasized that some canopy percentages are dictated by state law and cannot be raised by the town under current enabling code.

The draft is available on the town website under Community Development > Draft Ordinance. Staff demonstrated the comment tool and said the public will be able to submit named comments on specific sections; staff plans to publish a revised draft in May and run a 60-day public comment period.

Staff described how the state code provides specific implementation tools and limits. Among the mechanisms discussed were preserving existing canopy on-site where possible, planting replacement trees, planting elsewhere on the property, fees in lieu and tree banks that encumber property within the locality to preserve canopy in perpetuity. Staff said state law prescribes formulas used to calculate replacement planting (for example, a formula that converts removal of a large specimen into required additional smaller trees). Staff also described potential maintenance and long-term protection options such as easements, bonding and encumbrances.

Commissioners and attendees pressed staff on what "preservation" means on a developing parcel, whether targets are per-parcel or jurisdiction-wide and whether the ordinance could require protections such as designation of specimen trees. Staff said the enabling statutes include different sections with different tool sets and that some protective regimes (for example, an ordinance establishing individually designated specimen trees) would be adopted under a separate enabling provision (discussed as Title 10.1 rather than the 15.2 provisions that govern zoning), would typically belong in the town code rather than the zoning ordinance and could require compensation procedures for trees on private property.

A commission member said previous informal estimates suggested the town would need about $4,000,000 in planting investment to reach a past canopy target; that estimate was described during discussion as an approximate calculation rather than a staff cost estimate. Staff also said incentives in the state code are currently modest and that the town could add more specific documentation requirements or "teeth" in its local text to make deviations from preservation targets harder to justify.

Staff listed next steps: staff and the consultant will revise the draft and republish it in May, the town will run a 60-day public comment period, and staff will return to the commission after revision for further input. Melissa, the town's recently hired urban forester, will be engaged in the rewrite and in future development review.

The presentation included repeated references to state enabling statutes and procedural constraints; staff advised the commission that unless state law changes the town must conform to the statutory limits identified in the draft.