Culpeper planning commission declines to back 25% residential cap in Commercial Services district after lengthy hearing

The Culpeper County Planning Commission voted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors not adopt ZTA 11‑2041, a proposed amendment to Appendix A (Article 6C) that would have limited residential uses in the Commercial Services (CS) district to at most 25% of a tract’s acreage, prohibited residential uses on the first floor of mixed‑use buildings, and added language (6.1C‑10‑3) stating residential ‘‘shall only be built concurrently with or after the completion of all proposed commercial uses.”

Staff framed the change as intended to preserve land for commercial uses and to encourage commercial development in CS areas. Staff emphasized that the amendment would not change the county’s underlying R3 density allowance (8 units per acre for multifamily) but would change how and where that density could be expressed on a parcel. Staff also acknowledged the draft language — especially the ‘‘concurrent/completion’’ clause — could be clarified.

Public commenters included property‑rights advocates, affected homeowners, landowners with active projects, and representatives of affordable‑housing organizations. Larry Green, chair of the Culpeper Voting Committee, alleged the Board of Supervisors elected in 2021 is attempting to ‘‘transform Culpeper County’’ and urged commissioners to protect property rights. Tom Ireland of 3 Flags asked whether a two‑year rebuild requirement after a natural disaster could jeopardize homeowners; staff confirmed the two‑year rebuild provision in the code.

Affordable‑housing advocates pressed the commission to consider exemptions or an overlay. Andy Davenport, vice president of real estate development for Community Housing Partners, warned that the 25% acreage cap could make income‑restricted, mixed‑income projects infeasible on certain parcels and proposed an affordable‑housing overlay or an exemption for income‑restricted units. Melanie Birch of Habitat for Humanity described Habitat’s use of federal affordability guidelines, the Virginia Statewide Community Land Trust to preserve long‑term affordability, and argued workforce housing is an economic and community need.

Commissioners debated the policy tradeoffs at length. Critics said the concurrency language was vague and economically unrealistic in some contexts (Clevenger’s Corner was cited as an example where commercial activity stalled until a residential component existed); supporters said the amendment would preserve commercial acreage and encourage mixed‑use centers rather than pure residential subdivisions. Staff noted there have been very few CS residential site plans in recent years and reiterated that parcels can still apply to be rezoned.

After deliberation a commissioner moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of Supervisors not adopt the proposed amendment; the motion carried by voice/raise vote. The commission will forward its recommendation against adoption to the Board of Supervisors.

Next steps: the Board of Supervisors will consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation in a future meeting; staff and commissioners discussed returning to staff for language clarification if the Board requests further action.