Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Berkeley Group finds gaps in Frederick County zoning; recommends phased rewrite, clearer code
Summary
A Berkeley Group diagnostic presented to Frederick County officials found roughly 44% of mandatory state zoning provisions reflected in the county ordinance, flagged organizational and compliance gaps, and recommended a phased update with prioritization of state-code alignment, clearer formatting, and targeted administrative waivers.
A joint work session of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission heard on the Berkeley Group’s diagnostic report for the county zoning ordinance, which found significant gaps between local rules and state requirements and recommended a phased approach to reform.
Caroline VanTurf, senior planner with Berkeley Group, told the board that just over half of zoning-related state regulations are mandatory for localities and that about 44% of those mandatory sections are reflected in Frederick County’s current ordinance while roughly 30% are not reflected and about 20% are only partially reflected. "That is not to say that the county is not doing these things in practice," VanTurf said, "but when it's not stated clearly in your zoning ordinance, it just puts the county in a very vulnerable position in the event of a legal challenge." (Presentation by Berkeley Group.)
The diagnostic recommended consolidating zoning and subdivision ordinances into a single, clearer document; using tables or a use matrix to list permitted uses and permissions; simplifying dense prose into multilevel lists; and creating a clearer administrative-waiver process so minor adjustments can be handled by staff rather than through formal board hearings. VanTurf also recommended that localities consider civil penalties for zoning violations as an optional tool before escalation to criminal sanctions under state parameters.
Staff and consultants proposed a phased work plan: Phase 1 to address administrative structure and state-code compliance; Phase 2 to address policy and density issues following a comprehensive-plan update; and Phase 3 to create ongoing maintenance procedures. Berkeley Group estimated a full ordinance rewrite commonly takes about 1½ to 2 years, with shorter targeted updates possible. Wyatt Pearson, the county’s planning director, said the county plans to use a planning "on-call" roster or targeted RFP to secure consultant help and that a consulting-services line item will be included in the department budget.
Board members at the meeting expressed broad support for proceeding, citing decades of piecemeal amendments that have left the ordinance verbose and internally inconsistent. Several supervisors urged a faster timeline and emphasized staff capacity limits. VanTurf recommended annual reviews—late summer or early fall—so local amendments can reflect recent changes to the Code of Virginia.
The presentation and ensuing discussion emphasized clarity, legal protection for the county and staff, and incremental implementation that avoids locking in policy before the scheduled comprehensive-plan update. The board did not take formal action at the meeting on ordinance changes; staff sought direction on priorities and the mechanics of starting the update process.
Next steps: staff and consultants will refine priorities for Phase 1, return with a proposed scope and procurement approach for consulting services, and coordinate work with the upcoming comprehensive-plan update.
