Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Downtown Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Leesburg resident urges minimum 20-foot setbacks downtown, calls for extra review after BAR approvals
Summary
A Royal Street resident told the planning commission the draft zoning ordinances downtown provisions allow 0-foot side/rear setbacks and up to 65-foot buildings in locations that could overwhelm adjacent historic properties; she asked the commission to require 20-foot clearances and supplemental hearings after BAR approvals.
Leesburg — During public comment at the April 3 Leesburg Planning Commission meeting, resident Suzanne Larkins of 3 Royal Street Southeast urged commissioners to revise draft downtown setback rules she said would allow new, taller buildings to be placed immediately adjacent to smaller historic properties.
Larkins addressed the commission after staffs Article 1 and 2 presentation. She cited draft Article 2, division 5, section 5.5 C (downtown rules) and said subsections 1 and 2 would permit zero side-yard and rear-yard setbacks for properties fronting Market, Loudoun, King, Wirt and Liberty streets and that subsection 5 could allow up to 65-foot maximum heights on certain parcels.
"By approving zero side-yard setbacks, the street lots allow zero back side-yard setbacks to adjacent buildings," Larkins said, and she argued that a blanket allowance for zero setbacks does not account for varying lot depths. She pointed to 208 South King Street and 212 South King Street as examples of large lots where a 65-foot building could create shading, noise and stormwater impacts and could conflict with fire-access standards.
Larkins asked the commission to revise section 5.5 C(1) and C(2) to require a dimensional minimum of 20-foot side and rear yard clearances along blocks that abut the downtown street lots, with supplemental review for greater clearances depending on mass and height relative to neighboring properties. She also requested a checks-and-balances process so that, when the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approves a 45- to 65-foot project, petitioners and nearby residents would have the opportunity for a supplemental Planning Commission hearing to raise concerns if they believe the BAR did not follow historic-district guidelines.
"These proposed rear yard setbacks fail to acknowledge the impact these blanket applications have on varying lot sizes within the B-1 zone, and most importantly the impact 0 allowances have on properties abutting the street lots," Larkins said in her statement submitted to the commission.
Commission response and next steps: The chair accepted Larkins' comments for the record. Staff and commissioners noted the commission will continue reviewing downtown dimensional and design standards as part of the Article 2 review; staff had highlighted the existing enhanced-height polygon downtown and had asked whether commissioners wanted a simpler, contour-based approach to create more consistent treatment of parcels at lower elevations.
Ending: Larkins' comments were recorded in the meeting transcript and the commission closed the public-comment segment and continued the ordinance review. No immediate ordinance revision was adopted during the meeting; Larkins' requests will be part of the public record and may inform the commission's follow-up work on downtown standards.
