Nelson County launches two‑year rewrite of zoning and subdivision ordinances

Chris Musso, a consultant with the Berkeley Group, told the Nelson County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission on Feb. 26 that the county is beginning a two‑year effort to rewrite its zoning and subdivision ordinances, with the drafting phase followed by public open houses and formal hearings in winter 2025–2026. The project team has completed an initial diagnostic (posted at nelson2042.com) and held focused community engagement including five focus groups and two in‑person workshops.

Musso said the draft reorganizes the ordinance to improve readability and alignment with the Code of Virginia, grouping provisions into a new table of contents and labeling Articles such as general provisions, administration, permits and nonconformities. "You can never have too many definitions," Musso said when asked about adding a local definition for terms such as a ‘‘condition.’’ He said Code of Virginia definitions are used where applicable and local definitions will be added where the county needs clarity.

On administration, the draft consolidates Planning Commission rules into the zoning ordinance and clarifies the role of the zoning administrator. Musso recommended referring to a single term, "administrator," for the planning and zoning director, zoning administrator, subdivision agent, or their designee. He also recommended removing voting authority from a Board of Supervisors representative serving as a liaison to the commission; the draft removes that voting power to avoid dual voting and potential conflicts.

The draft adds optional civil penalties as an enforcement tool, "allowing the County to fine ordinance violators up to $5,000 before criminal penalties are applied," Musso said, and proposes a countywide fee schedule adopted by the Board (annually or at another chosen interval) to streamline updates. Musso noted Nelson County can charge applicants for professional review services such as engineering when outside expertise is required.

Article 3 in the draft addresses permits and applications and formalizes pre‑application meetings and guidelines for community meetings; staff confirmed they already conduct informal pre‑application consultations. The draft merges concept plans with site plans while preserving minor and major site plan categories. Musso described major site plans as typically involving land disturbance over one acre, commercial or industrial uses, three or more buildings on a lot, or any building exceeding 5,000 square feet; minor plans would cover smaller projects and some single‑family work would remain exempt.

Musso urged county officials to review an exhaustive list of site‑infrastructure standards included in the draft and identify items that may be overly burdensome for residents. Supervisors raised examples — alley widths in Lovingston and the need to coordinate fire hydrant requirements with the service authority — and asked staff to refine language that could create unnecessary cost or delay for small applicants.

The draft also tightens nonconforming‑use rules to align with state law, clarifying that owners may not expand a nonconforming building and that a use that ceases for two years generally cannot resume; Musso acknowledged this removes a previous local extension process. Supervisor Jesse N. Rutherford said that approach merits further study given the high prevalence of nonconforming structures in Lovingston and asked for options that would avoid forcing owners into a full special‑use process for modest restorations.

Musso said the project team will continue drafting articles and post updated materials to the project website. Planning Commissioner Michael Harman moved to continue the joint worksession for additional topic review; William Smith seconded and the motion passed unanimously. The Board agreed to resume consideration of Article 9 and related provisions at a future meeting. The ordinance process will include a public open house and additional hearings before adoption.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to continue joint worksession: moved by Michael Harman; seconded by William Smith; passed unanimously (4–0). - Motion to adjourn Board of Supervisors: moved by Jesse N. Rutherford; seconded by Dr. Jessica L. Ligon; passed unanimously.