Staff asks Pittsylvania supervisors to authorize attorney to fix scrivener's errors and formatting in zoning code

County planning staff presented examples of contradictions and formatting problems in the Pittsylvania County zoning ordinance and asked the Board of Supervisors to authorize the county attorney to correct clerical errors and improve clarity.

At the Dec. 16 work session Mr. Arnold (county staff) distributed examples and focused on the zoning ordinance as a priority because it is the county code chapter most frequently used in permitting. He cited a direct conflict between section 35-40 and section 35-61 over how "front yard" is defined for lots on Smith Mountain Lake: one passage in the adopted code treats the front yard as the space between the principal building and the road, while another passage (updated in December 2021) treats the front yard as the space between the principal building and the lake. "So which one do you go off of right here?" Arnold asked, noting that the contradiction causes confusion during permit reviews.

Arnold also pointed to inconsistent accessory-structure setback language: one zoning-district provision refers to a 12-foot rear setback while another section (35-74) references 15 feet. He recommended including bridging language that permits referring to district-specific regulations when they differ from general provisions, and said any final text should be reviewed with the county attorney.

Beyond contradictions, Arnold proposed usability improvements such as alphabetizing and punctuating long permitted-use lists or presenting them as tables so the public and staff can more easily determine whether a use is by right or requires a special-use permit. He characterized the requested changes as "grammatical errors, spelling errors, opportunities to improve the formatting, or to resolve contradictions" and explicitly said he was not asking for substantive policy changes—those would still require board action.

Supervisors asked whether the issues might be corrected during the ongoing comprehensive zoning rewrite (the Berkeley effort). Arnold said he had not checked whether every example had already been resolved in the proposed rewrite but expected many issues would be caught; he said staff nonetheless wanted authorization to correct clear scrivener errors sooner. Board members signaled general support for allowing the county attorney to make clerical and formatting corrections, with a request that staff provide a communication stream to inform the board what changes are made.

What happens next: staff asked the board to place a resolution on the consent agenda authorizing the county attorney to proceed with non-substantive corrections; the county attorney and staff will prepare language and report back on changes and timing.