Culpeper County planning commission recommends denying proposed A‑1, RA zoning and subdivision changes

The Culpeper County Planning Commission at a special call meeting voted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors deny proposed amendments to Article 3 and Article 4 of the county code (changes to A‑1 and RA zoning) and related changes to the subdivision ordinance in Appendices A and B.

Sam, county staff, presented the item and said the draft would increase minimum lot sizes in the A‑1 district from 5 to 10 acres and in the RA district from 3 to 6 acres, retain a 10‑acre requirement for lots lacking required road frontage, and add a new rural cluster option based on 10‑acre density (for example, 100 acres could yield up to 10 lots with a 2‑acre minimum lot size). The draft initially required 70% deed‑restricted open space for clusters; the Planning Commission’s work session reduced that to 50%. Staff also outlined proposed new road standards and said the commission had suggested eliminating an engineer certification requirement to limit costs.

Commissioners spent most of the meeting discussing the practical effects of the minimum‑lot increases and the rural cluster option. One commissioner summarized turnout from the public hearing on Nov. 20, saying “we had over 200 people in attendance. We had 48 people that spoke. Only 6 of them or 7 perhaps were for it,” and noting a petition with 178 signatures from impacted landowners.

Several commissioners expressed concern that increasing minimum lot sizes could inadvertently remove more land from agricultural use in practice, and that the cluster option (even with 50% open space) might be difficult to implement because of road‑frontage limits and other technical constraints. A commissioner asked about an ongoing court challenge to the draft’s time‑based method; staff said there has been a partial ruling in the Demir case and the full ruling is pending and that, to his knowledge, the county attorney had not issued a formal takings opinion.

During the discussion commissioners raised property‑rights concerns and questioned whether the draft addresses a present problem in the county. One commissioner characterized the proposal as taking landowner rights without clear benefit. After discussion, a commissioner moved that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed amendments; the motion passed by a voice/hand vote and the recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.

The staff reminder at the end of the meeting noted the commission has up to 100 days under state code to act on matters of this type and could extend its consideration into January if it chose; the Board of Supervisors must hold at least one public hearing before adopting any ordinance changes. The commission adjourned and will next meet at its regularly scheduled meeting.

The commission’s formal recommendation and the minutes forwarded to the Board of Supervisors will provide the official record of the vote and any accompanying rationale or conditions. The transcript did not include a roll‑call vote tally; the chair called for raised hands and the motion passed.