Leesburg planning commission begins in-depth review of draft zoning ordinance rewrite

Leesburg — The Leesburg Planning Commission on April 3 began a line-by-line review of a draft rewrite of the townzoning ordinance that staff and a consultant released on March 6 and opened to public comment through May 5.

Director James David opened the presentation by describing the project timeline and scope. "Happy to be here tonight to begin our our long and detailed review of the draft zoning ordinance, which we're calling the zoning ordinance rewrite," he said, noting the rewrite was intended to align the ordinance with the town plan and to modernize use definitions, measurement rules and the online presentation of the code.

The draft reduces the number of base zoning districts, streamlines use categories and consolidates standards; staff said the proposal compresses about 24 existing districts into 12 base districts and then adds three new districts for a total of 15 proposed districts. Staff emphasized the project began in summer 2023, included multiple rounds of outreach and is intended to move to council recommendation by the end of 2025 if the commission is ready.

Why it matters: The rewrite changes how the town defines and permits uses, calculates density and prescribes dimensional standards. Those details will influence redevelopment, housing types, where commercial activity may be allowed and how the town evaluates infrastructure needs associated with new development.

Key points from the meeting

- Uses approach: Staff said the draft moves from an exhaustive list-of-uses model to a "use category" approach. Director David explained that for each use category the draft provides a list of primary example uses plus a statement permitting "other uses meeting the characteristics of the [use] category," allowing the zoning administrator to interpret whether new, previously unanticipated uses fit the category.

- Article 1 (general provisions): Staff highlighted measurement rules (building frontage, floor-area ratio, density calculations) and an allowances table that specifies what features are permitted to project into setbacks (porches, eaves, mechanical equipment). The draft preserves proffers for properties that previously used them and treats those parcels as "legacy" zones that remain administratively but would not be available for future rezonings.

- Residential districts: Commissioners discussed the proposed RS (residential suburban), RHD (historic residential), RM (residential medium) and RU (residential urban) districts. Notable provisions shown in the draft include: a conservation subdivision option that clusters smaller lots to preserve environmental features; an RHD that limits single-family lot sizes to 4,000 square feet and duplexes to 3,000 square feet (with horizontal duplexes at 6,000); and, in RM, a requirement that developments with more than eight units include at least two housing types and limit single-family detached units to no more than 66% of the total unit count.

- Lot sizes, building envelopes and accessory setbacks: Commissioners repeatedly raised concern that some proposed average lot areas and the illustrative graphics did not match the character commissioners expected for "suburban" neighborhoods. Several commissioners asked staff to run test-case scenarios showing how proposed densities, setbacks and lot sizes translate into typical building envelopes and driveways. Commissioners also questioned a draft accessory structure side/rear clearance shown in the table as 3 feet; several asked that the clearance be set at 5 feet to allow emergency access and reduce potential impacts on neighbors.

- Attainable housing and ADUs: The draft includes bonuses for attainable housing. Commissioners noted an existing council policy requiring accessory dwelling units (ADUs) for developments over 25 units and asked staff to ensure the draft's language aligns with that council direction across all districts.

- Trees and environmental protections: Commissioners and staff agreed tree canopy and preservation standards must be reconciled with state code limits; staff said a separate tree-canopy section is under development and will be returned to the commission for review.

- Infrastructure and Crescent District concerns: Commissioners pressed staff about how the rewrite interacts with infrastructure planning, especially for the Crescent District/Catoctin Circle area. Staff and the commission noted that transportation, water/sewer and stormwater capacity are evaluated in parallel planning documents (for example, the Crescent District Master Plan and transportation modeling) and that rezonings typically require developers to provide or fund needed off-site improvements or proffers.

- Mixed-use and commercial districts: The draft proposes a new Mixed Use district and a 60/40 mix concept (60% residential/40% nonresidential minimum in gross floor area) as one approach; staff reported property owners of the Village at Leesburg told consultants that a strict per-unit or per-GFA formula could make existing mixed-use patterns difficult to achieve. The commission asked staff to test the Village at Leesburg and other local examples as benchmarks and to consider simpler percentage-based standards rather than per-unit formulas (for example, one dwelling unit per 2,500 square feet of nonresidential GFA as proposed by the consultant).

- Downtown height "polygon" and step-back rules: The draft carries forward an existing enhanced-height area downtown that allows some parcels to reach up to 65 feet where topography permits, subject to step-back and design criteria. Commissioners asked whether that approach could be simplified (for instance, by applying a topographic contour consistently) so parcels at lower elevations are treated equitably. Staff said they would examine options and return with a clearer, simpler approach for commissioners to consider.

- Innovation Center (IC) vs. Industrial/Research (IR): Staff described a new IC district intended to implement the town planvision for employment-focused, greener campuses that may include some residential and small ancillary retail. Commissioners asked whether the IC district is sufficiently distinct from the existing IR district and whether it should include residential at all; staff said they would revisit the intended uses and overlap and report back.

- Data centers and utilities: Commissioners noted data centers were permitted in the IR district in the draft but not in the IC district. Staff also said public utilities are treated broadly in the use table and that they would provide the exact state-code and local-policy references clarifying where utilities must be allowed and under what review process.

Commissioners asked staff to return with: printed maps tied to each district for the next meeting; representative, existing local examples (for instance, Village at Leesburg, Somerset Apartments) to illustrate how the draft district rules would work in practice; and test-case scenario calculations showing how lot sizes, unit mixes and parking requirements interact with the proposed dimensional standards.

No formal action on the draft ordinance was taken at the meeting. The commission moved to continue review at future meetings, including a scheduled review of Article 3 (use regulations). Staff reminded the public that the 60-day public comment period for the draft closes May 5; the draft is available on the project page linked from the towns regulations portal.

Ending: The commission scheduled follow-up sessions to dive deeper into use tables, mixed-use standards and the downtown and innovation-area questions. Staff said they would bring sample calculations and printed maps to help commissioners visualize real-world outcomes.