Franklin County planners and supervisors pause zoning rewrite after public backlash; call for more stakeholder work

Rebecca Cobb of the Berkeley Group opened a May 13 joint work session of Franklin County’s Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission by summarizing why the county’s 1988 zoning ordinance needs updating and outlining project goals to modernize uses, preserve agricultural land and align the ordinance with the 2045 comprehensive plan. “The current zoning ordinance from the 80s does not comply with a lot of the Code of Virginia requirements,” Cobb said, and described a process that began in August 2024 and produced a March 2026 first draft and related public outreach.

The Berkeley Group and county staff presented an engagement summary and an amendment-considerations worksheet that clustered public comments into about 25 topic areas and proposed two options for changes. County staff noted more than 400 people completed the recent public survey. Key public themes included protecting farmland and rural character, minimum lot sizes and road frontage, clearer setback and impervious-surface rules, allowances for small-scale poultry and beekeeping, and concerns about utility-scale projects such as data centers.

The consultant outlined specific options for agricultural districts: keep the existing A1 standards, adopt a new A2 (agricultural transition) district, or offer smaller minimum lot sizes with a sliding-scale division approach to preserve larger farms. On intensive agricultural uses, the consultant proposed alternatives such as changing draft setback language from a generic “waterway” to defined wetlands, and narrowing some stream setbacks (for example, from 1,000 feet to 300 feet for creeks and wetlands while retaining larger setbacks for rivers). Berkeley Group staff clarified that nutrient-management plans referenced in the draft are state filings and would remain a state-level approval while the county would use them for awareness, not county permitting.

The presentation also addressed energy and large-facility issues. The consultants recommended updating the draft to reflect recent state code changes on solar facilities and suggested stronger local standards for data centers—now often characterized as high-energy-use facilities—including site assessments, noise and water-quality testing, view-shed analysis and disclosure of utility infrastructure needed to serve such projects. The consultants cautioned that unzoned portions of the county currently lack local zoning controls and therefore allow such facilities by right under no local standards.

Planning Commission Chair Sherry Mitchell, who said the commission had worked on the draft through multiple work sessions, told both bodies the draft had been released “prematurely” and urged a slower, phased path forward to rebuild public trust. “We still own the document,” Mitchell said, calling for the Planning Commission to pause consultant-led timeline pressures and develop a communication plan and schedule for stakeholder engagement. “It is time to take our public opinion bath,” she added, summarizing her recommendation that commissioners and staff spend more time with farmers, developers, and affected residents before moving to public hearing or adoption.

Several planning commissioners and supervisors echoed Mitchell’s call. Commissioner Victor Evans said the amendment sheet will help focus subject-matter stakeholder meetings; Commissioner Ron Jefferson and others urged that the planning commission develop its own road map and timetable. Supervisors including Mike Carter and Tim Tatum criticized numerous detailed provisions in the draft—citing examples such as proposed coop and hive standards and primitive campground limits—and said they would not vote for a final draft until constituents’ concerns were addressed.

Supervisor Tim Tatum raised particular concern that large swaths of Franklin County are unzoned and therefore lack local zoning standards for data centers and similar projects, and asked county staff to explore legal options (including whether a referendum would be necessary or possible) to provide protections in unzoned areas. Commissioner and board members discussed using county email accounts and a single staff point-of-contact to ensure consistent flow of public feedback to both bodies.

Several supervisors recommended the county administrator take a stronger leadership role in project management. Member Dan Quinn suggested the county administrator review the Berkeley Group contract and clarify deliverables and what changed in the draft so the public can readily see which provisions are mandatory state law and which are discretionary policy choices.

By the end of the session both bodies agreed to slow the process and to reconvene the work with a revised approach. The board moved to adjourn and the meeting ended after a voice vote.

What’s next: the Planning Commission committed to produce a road map and timeline for additional stakeholder engagement and staff review, after which the Board of Supervisors will be provided a revised draft for further action; no final public-hearing date was set at the meeting.