Council begins multistep review of comprehensive zoning rewrite; staff and commission disagree on some district approaches

Planning staff and the planning commission presented and discussed an ordinance rewrite at length Oct. 22, providing councilors a binder with the draft ordinance, the planning commission’s resolution, citizen comments, and an addendum of changes.

The planning commission’s representative reviewed Article 1 (rules of measurement, nonconformities, an ordinance roadmap) and Article 2 (base districts). Staff noted the nonconforming‑lots section had been expanded (drawing on Loudoun County’s recent update) and recommended relocating an imperfectly defined “cluster subdivision” provision to the appendix and later drafting a true cluster subdivision option.

Councilors and staff discussed how legacy districts (designated to preserve existing district standards and grandfathering) differ from legislative grandfathering of individual properties, and explored possible term structures for a newly proposed seventh planning commissioner so that planning‑commission turnover better aligns with council election cycles. Staff proposed a neighborhood‑preservation approach and suggested several name changes to districts (for example, converting PDH to a legacy category and creating neighborhood‑preservation zones). Planners emphasized that many changes would not affect already‑approved subdivisions and that existing nonconforming uses would continue under state law absent legislative grandfathering.

Council agreed to schedule additional dedicated sessions to continue the detailed review and requested staff to provide the presentation slides and draft ordinance language in advance of the next meeting.