Leesburg planning commission begins detailed review of draft zoning ordinance rewrite

The Leesburg Planning Commission on April 3 began an in-depth review of the town's draft zoning ordinance rewrite, focusing on Articles 1 and 2 that define general provisions, measurements, zoning districts and dimensional standards.

Director James David of the Department of Community Development told commissioners the rewrite project began in summer 2023, that the draft text and map were posted March 6, and that "there is a 60‑day public comment period for the draft...the public comment period does close May 5." He said staff hopes for a commission recommendation to the Town Council by the end of 2025 but that the commission can take more time if needed.

The draft—which staff demonstrated in the interactive ENCODE Plus platform—reorganizes district names and consolidates many legacy districts. Staff described the rewrite as a repeal‑and‑replace of the existing ordinance, maintaining previously proffered commitments tied to individual rezonings. The draft groups districts into residential (residential suburban, historic residential, residential medium and residential urban), nonresidential and mixed‑use (commercial neighborhood, commercial suburban, innovation center, industrial research park, mixed use, downtown), special purpose and overlay districts.

Commissioners and staff spent substantial time on how the rewrite treats land uses and the administrator's discretion. Staff said the new ordinance uses broad use categories with a list of primary example uses and a catch‑all clause: "other uses meeting the characteristics of [the] use category," allowing the zoning administrator to classify novel uses so long as they meet stated characteristics. Commissioners asked whether the ordinance includes an exclusivity provision (whether uses are prohibited unless listed); staff pointed to the introductory use provisions and to Division 16 for guidance on the zoning administrator’s interpretation.

Several commissioners pressed staff for clarity and test cases on density and lot standards. Staff said density will be calculated on gross tract area after required exclusions (for example, floodplain deductions) and noted there are defined concepts for base density and bonus density in the draft. Commissioners described concerns that some proposed lot sizes and illustrative graphics—for example, a proposed 6,000‑square‑foot lot in some suburban districts—may not match the stated district character and could produce building envelopes too small for the types of houses described. Staff agreed to run test scenarios and return with scaled examples.

Commissioners also raised several recurring issues: - Housing mix: the draft includes provisions in the residential medium district requiring developments larger than eight units to include at least two housing types and to limit single‑family detached homes to no more than 66% of units. Residential urban includes attainable‑housing bonuses to encourage more affordable units. - Accessory buildings and setbacks: the conservation approach in some tables shows a 3‑foot side or rear setback for accessory structures; at least one commissioner said 3 feet is too close for neighbors and asked staff to reconsider. - Public utilities and major infrastructure: commissioners asked how the draft treats public utilities and whether some utilities must be permitted by right in all districts; staff said they will verify state code requirements and whether special‑exception review applies in certain cases. Commissioners also pressed for clearer language on who finances and constructs off‑site infrastructure—roads, sewer and water—tying the conversation to rezonings and the town's DCSM (Design and Construction Standards Manual). - Tree canopy and environmental protections: commissioners asked for stronger protections and plan‑review checks to preserve significant trees early in the review process. Staff said a tree canopy section is still under development and will be brought forward after balancing what the state code allows and town priorities. - Mixed‑use metrics and the Village at Leesburg precedent: staff proposed a mixed‑use district standard that would require a minimum proportion of nonresidential gross floor area (for example, 40% nonresidential as a discussion point). Several commissioners asked staff to use successful local examples—such as Village at Leesburg and downtown parcels—as test cases rather than rigid formulas, and to revisit whether strict percentages are necessary or enforceable. - Downtown height and stepbacks: staff noted an "enhanced height" polygon in downtown that allows taller buildings (up to 65 feet) at lower elevations with stepback requirements. Commissioners suggested simplifying the polygon rule, for example by tying additional height to a topographic contour to make application more equitable across property owners, and asked staff to be mindful of sunlight and view impacts on existing residences.

Staff and commissioners also discussed district‑specific points: the innovation center district was presented as an option to implement the town plan's innovation‑center character area; staff noted data centers are not currently proposed in the IC district but remain allowed in Industrial Research Park (IR). Commissioners asked staff to compare IC and IR to see whether separate districts are needed or if uses can be combined.

At the meeting's close, a resident urged the commission to revise proposed downtown provisions to prevent blanket zero‑setback allowances that, she said, would allow new large buildings to adjoin smaller historic properties. Suzanne Larkins of Royal Street told the commission that the draft language in Article 2, section 5.5 downtown C(1), C(2) and C(5) "failed to acknowledge the impact these blanket applications have on varying lot sizes" and asked the commission to require a 20‑foot side and rear yard clearance for properties that abut the street lots or to hold additional public‑comment hearings for 45‑to‑65‑foot proposals. Staff acknowledged the public comment and said comments will be cataloged and addressed in future drafts.

The commission asked staff to return with: printed maps to follow locations while discussing districts, scaled test‑block examples to show how densities and setbacks translate to building envelopes, comparisons to existing successful mixed‑use projects, and precise citations about utilities and state code. Staff said those items and the use table will be discussed in upcoming meetings; commissioners indicated they want to spend multiple sessions on the use table.

Procedural business included adoption of the agenda and approval of minutes from March 20; staff recorded the motions as passed by voice vote with no detailed roll call included in the transcript.

The public comment period on the draft zoning ordinance remains open through May 5, 2025; staff posted the draft, the code audit, and an annotated outline on the project's online platform and encouraged written comments.