Culpeper planning commission hears public concerns over proposed Unified Development Ordinance

Planning staff presented a proposed Unified Development Ordinance to the Town of Culpeper Planning Commission and took more than an hour of public comment on Wednesday, with residents and property owners raising concerns about zoning map changes, design standards and potential effects on small businesses.

Staff member Andrew Hopewell opened the commission hearing with a detailed timeline of the UDO effort, saying the overhaul started in 2019 with outside consultants and advisory committees and that the full draft was released earlier this year. "I will apologize in advance that this is a fairly dry presentation," he told commissioners before walking through outreach, section updates and an implementation schedule that includes multiple open houses and town council hearings in May and June.

The draft retains many existing technical standards — including minimum lot sizes, setbacks and the Historic Overlay District — but replaces the town's traditional use‑based approach with new zoning districts, building types and form‑based code elements for mixed‑use and nonresidential areas. Staff outlined several substantive changes: a proposed increase in required parking for single‑family homes from two spaces to three; accessory dwelling units allowed by right rather than by conditional use permit; a shortening of the short‑term rental definition from 90 days to 30 days; updated wireless facility language to align with state law; and new beekeeping standards.

Public commenters focused on how the changes would affect property rights, commercial uses and neighborhood character. "If we start controlling how many beehives we have, we're gonna lose our bees," said local beekeeper and downtown business owner Felicia Chavez, who told the commission she keeps as many as 12 hives and said the proposed section on beekeeping would make her operation noncompliant. Chavez also emphasized the business impact: she said her shop, La Vida Loca, brings customers downtown and that restrictions could harm revenue.

Property owners described several map‑level impacts they fear the UDO would create. Juan Vargas asked that his property on Aspen Street remain in a commercial designation rather than become neighborhood mixed use. Paul Bates and other owners said longstanding heavy‑industrial parcels near Braggs Corner and Brandy Road are shown as neighborhood mixed‑use in the draft, which would make some existing tenants nonconforming. "We're using a very broad brush," Bates said, urging case‑by‑case review.

Other commenters criticized the use of outside templates and form‑based codes. "Staff decided to go in a new direction and use outside consultants, pre‑written, pre‑packaged zoning codes," said property owner David Dejarnet, who urged the commission to reject the proposal and claimed the changes could reduce property values. Dejarnet's and other speakers' objections ranged from concern about permitting data centers in industrial zones to objections that aesthetic and form requirements amount to micromanagement that would slow development and add cost.

Several speakers also questioned procedural and authority changes described by staff. Hopewell told the commission that recent legislation from Richmond requires staff, not the Planning Commission, to be the approving authority for major subdivisions and site plans; the transcript records that the zoning administrator would gain expanded administrative modification powers, with neighbor notification and conditional use if opposition is raised.

The public hearing closed after multiple speakers asked for clearer, more accessible outreach materials and for staff to consider individual property circumstances. The commission did not take a formal vote on the UDO during the hearing; Hopewell said staff will bring property owner map‑change requests to a work session next week and that open houses and council committee presentations are scheduled through early June. The commission proceeded to other business and moved to adjourn following routine clerk items.

The Planning Commission's next scheduled UDO discussion is the work session where staff will present the property‑specific map requests and summarize written comments received; town council public hearings on the draft are scheduled in May and June, according to the schedule presented by staff.