On the agenda: Berryville Berryville Area Development Authority Meeting — data center (Oct 28)

BERRYVILLE AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA
Wednesday, October 28, 2026, 1:00PM
Berryville – Clarke County Government Center A/B Meeting Room
101 Chalmers Court – Berryville, Virginia
1.

Call to Order – Allen Kitselman (Chair)

2.

Approval of Agenda

3.

Approval of Minutes – September 23, 2026 Meeting

4.

Old Business
A.

Continued Discussion, Berryville Area Plan Update
(1)

Public Input Workshop rescheduling

(2)

Discussion, Direction on Southern Gateway Residential Growth Area and
Craig’s Run Light Industrial Area

5.

New Business ~ None Scheduled

6.

Other Business

7.

Adjourn

NEXT MEETING – Wednesday, November 18, 2026 (1:00PM)

October 28, 2026 Berryville Area Development Authority meeting

1 of 18

Berryville Area Development Authority (BADA)
DRAFT MINUTES – Regular Meeting
Wednesday, September 23, 2026 at 1:00PM
Berryville-Clarke County Government Center
A/B Meeting Room

Allen Kitselman (Chair)
George L. Ohrstrom, II (Vice-Chair)
Harry Lee Arnold, Jr.
L – Denotes arrived late

ATTENDANCE:
✓ John Hudson
✓ Selena Smart
✓ David Weiss

✓
✓L
✓

A meeting of the Berryville Area Development Authority (BADA) was held on Wednesday, September 23,
2026.
STAFF PRESENT: Terry Russell (Community Development Director – Berryville), Brandon Stidham
(Director of Planning – County)
OTHERS PRESENT: Charles Nulsen (Washington Property Company), Ken Dondero (Christopher
Companies)
1.

Call to Order – By Chair Kitselman at 1:00PM.

2.

Approval of Agenda

The Authority voted 4-0-2 to approve the agenda as presented by Staff.
Motion to approve the agenda as presented by Staff:
Allen Kitselman
AYE
John Hudson
George L. Ohrstrom, II
ABSENT
Selena Smart
Harry Lee Arnold, Jr.
AYE
David Weiss
3.

Approval of Minutes

A.

August 12, 2026 Special Meeting

AYE (moved)
ABSENT
AYE (seconded)

The Authority voted 4-0-2 to approve the August 12, 2026 special meeting minutes as presented by Staff.
Motion to approve the August 12, 2026 special meeting minutes as presented by Staff:
Allen Kitselman
AYE
John Hudson
AYE
George L. Ohrstrom, II
ABSENT
Selena Smart
ABSENT
Harry Lee Arnold, Jr.
AYE (moved)
David Weiss
AYE (seconded)
B.

August 26, 2026 Meeting

The Authority voted 3-0-3 to approve the August 26, 2026 meeting minutes as presented by Staff. Mr.
Weiss abstained as he did not attend this meeting.

October 28, 2026 Berryville Area Development Authority meeting

2 of 18

Motion to approve the August 26, 2026 meeting minutes as presented by Staff:
Allen Kitselman
AYE
John Hudson
AYE (seconded)
George L. Ohrstrom, II
ABSENT
Selena Smart
ABSENT
Harry Lee Arnold, Jr.
AYE (moved)
David Weiss
ABSTAINED
Ms. Smart entered the meeting at 1:03PM.
4.

Old Business

A.

Appearance, Charles Nulsen (Washington Property Company)

Chair Kitselman introduced Mr. Nulsen who appeared electronically to discuss commercial development
trends. Mr. Nulsen briefly described his background in the commercial development industry and as a
long-time County property owner. He also told a story about a recent interaction with County residents
in which they said they want Berryville to stay the same and do not want to see any growth and
development. He noted that he replied to them that growth is going to happen in the future and it is
more productive to focus on positive forms of development instead of saying no to everything. He
concluded by stating that he understands what the Authority is up against with planning challenges.
Chair Kitselman said that Mr. Nulsen understands the County’s land use philosophy, what we have done
to implement it, and that we are surrounded by fast-growing counties. He said that the Authority is
looking at the next wave of annexation areas to include both commercial and residential development.
He added that the Authority would like Mr. Nulsen’s ideas on what should be considered. Mr. Nulsen
said from a commercial standpoint, a town of Berryville’s size can only support certain types of
development. He said he developed the Middleburg Commercial Center which is 20,000 square feet in
size and includes medical and wealth management offices. He added that he thinks there is a market in
Berryville for modern offices as opposed to converting old houses into offices. He said it comes down
to architectural design, noting that the town of Middleburg weighed heavily on the barn-style design of
Middleburg Commercial Center. He noted that medical office is similar to retail in that developers of
these uses want to be close to population centers.
Mr. Nulsen asked Authority members what their opinion is of self-storage businesses. Mr. Weiss
replied that he does not think the use would be beneficial from a financial standpoint in the areas
currently being considered, adding that he does not think they generate much revenue. Mr. Nulsen said
that there is a lot of push-back on self-storage uses but noted that they generate higher rents than office
space. He added that they generate low utility costs, have less need for parking lots, and do not have
typical development impacts on things like schools and traffic. He also noted that self-storage pays
property taxes at a higher rate than office buildings. He said he recommends considering the use as
having minimal impact on infrastructure and a positive impact on tax revenue. He also noted that smallscale contractors like plumbers and electricians use self-storage businesses to store their equipment and
supplies.
Regarding office, Mr. Nulsen noted that the Berryville downtown is primarily retail and recommended
not allowing retail on the outskirts of town that would adversely impact downtown. He noted that craft
beer/entertainment type businesses bring traffic to towns.

2
October 28, 2026 Berryville Area Development Authority meeting

3 of 18

Chair Kitselman asked about flex office space. Mr. Nulsen replied that he has developed these project
before and added that they are clean and easy to build. He added that flex office is in higher demand
and noted that industrial areas in northern Virginia that are being taken up by data centers are pushing
flex office spaces into the more rural areas. He also said that they can be developed very nicely with
glass in the front and loading areas in the back. He noted that small technology business, light
assembly, and last-mile distribution businesses are interested in flex office. He concluded that they have
low vacancy rates right now.
Ms. Smart asked for clarification on whether this use is a coworking use like “WeWork.” Mr. Nulsen
replied that this use is a shared workspace business. He added that a one-story flex office is designed to
allow an office or showroom in the front with warehousing and loading in the back. Chair Kitselman
noted that the first building on the right as you go into the business park is the closest thing to flex office
that we currently have. Mr. Stidham added that it works great for small businesses. Chair Kitselman
also said that it is a building with multiple tenants in separate spaces. Mr. Russell noted that you see
them around Manassas as long buildings with multiple storefronts but with light industrial tenants
instead of retail tenants. Ms. Smart asked if we have space for these uses. Mr. Russell replied that we
do in the Berryville Area Plan. Mr. Hudson asked if these spaces are rented month to month and Mr.
Nulsen replied that they are mostly 5-10 year leases.
Chair Kitselman asked Mr. Nulsen could share his thoughts on residential development. He added that
we mostly have single-family developments where the developer wants to maximize profitability. He
said we would like to have more affordable housing and maybe even multifamily. He asked if Mr.
Nulsen had any ideas of how we could address this situation in a rural setting. Mr. Nulsen suggested
affordable housing in walkable areas such as townhomes, duplexes, and quadplexes. He said an
affordable unit would be one that could be built in a tight space like a quadplex. He also noted that
affordability is hard to achieve unless there are some tax breaks. He said that he thinks it would not be
affordable for a developer to build a 3-story apartment building but it might be for a quadplex or a twoover-two. He added that in his recent conversation with residents, they said they do not like “cookiecutter homes” but these homes are affordable. He also noted that younger residents do not want to have
a home with a lawn that needs to be mowed on the weekends and they do not mind living in tighter
spaces closer to other people.
Mr. Arnold left the meeting at 1:23PM.
Mr. Weiss asked if you can create a village setting with residential uses in the annexation areas. Mr.
Nulsen replied yes with both housing, retail, and commercial spaces planned together. He noted that
Lovettsville is trying to do this with some of their outlying areas. Chair Kitselman said the downside is
that we want to grow the town and not create sub-towns. Mr. Nulsen agreed and said that it could
adversely impact Main Street. He said that the residents he spoke with also said that Main Street needs
to be revitalized, and he added that this cannot happen without people. He also said that people often
complain about not wanting change but when it happens, they appreciate it and use it. He said he thinks
Berryville has great bones with the Barns, a great Main Street, and good schools. Ms. Smart noted that
the schools are doing a great job based on recently reported SOL scores and should be promoted more
for this. Mr. Nulsen added that the biggest challenge for the Berryvilles of the world is to protect and
add to your Main Street.

3
October 28, 2026 Berryville Area Development Authority meeting

4 of 18

Mr. Stidham asked if we should avoid brick-and-mortar retail development in the annexation areas.
Chair Kitselman said it would be okay so long as it does not compete with downtown businesses. Mr.
Nulsen agreed and said he thinks there is enough downtown to provide retail support. He also asked if
the Authority has considered senior housing. Chair Kitselman replied that we have plenty of senior
housing and where we are lacking is affordable workforce housing. Mr. Weiss added that we have three
senior living facilities and Mr. Russell noted that we have a zoning district specifically for senior
housing.
Mr. Nulsen said that affordable housing can be done but it is going to be basic, straightforward
construction that uses medium-grade materials. He also mentioned in his conversation with the
residents asking them if they would rather have 20 homes on 20 acres or 20 homes on two acres. Chair
Kitselman replied that we have been discussing ways to improve on residential density. Mr. Nulsen
reiterated that younger residents are fine with giving up yards.
Chair Kitselman thanked Mr. Nulsen for offering his time to speak with the Authority. Mr. Nulsen left
the meeting.
B.

Continued Discussion, Berryville Area Plan Update

Chair Kitselman said the discussion with Mr. Nulsen confirmed a lot of what we have been struggling
with. Mr. Hudson said that a takeaway is to develop residential with walkability and smaller lots. Mr.
Stidham suggested prioritizing the Western annexation study area over the Hermitage South area since
the family has not expressed an interest in developing the balance of their farm right now. Mr. Hudson
noted a recent article that forecasts a decline in the number of children which could result in school
systems delaying new construction projects. Mr. Russell noted how Arlington County addressed
fluctuations in student population over the years and also said he has heard that Clarke County Schools
has done a good job in planning their buildings for future expansion if needed.
Ms. Smart asked if there is currently any land in town available for townhomes or quadplexes. Mr.
Russell replied that there are several undeveloped lots within residential areas that this could be done.
He said Keith Dalton (Town Manager) recently noted that the Western annexation study area would be a
higher priority than the Hermitage South annexation study area. He also said the Town is in favor of
changing the Business Park (BP) zoning on the land at the end of South Church Street to residential
zoning. He added that he could see townhouses in this location. Chair Kitselman noted that this area
has pedestrian connectivity as does the Western annexation study area. He added that the public water
and sewer system west of Mosby Boulevard owned by the County may need to be upgraded. Mr. Weiss
noted that a plan was developed to determine how that system should be upgraded. Mr. Stidham added
that the system west of the traffic circle is served by the Town but owned by the County. Ms. Smart
asked how to get that system improved and Chair Kitselman replied that perhaps future developers could
pay for it. Mr. Weiss noted that there are only two or three privately-owned lots in that area that could
be developed. Mr. Stidham noted that the only way you could get development to improve that portion
of the system is to create a small annexation area west of the park. Chair Kitselman noted that there is
not much developable land there and Mr. Stidham added that there might be stormwater issues there too.
He added that our best opportunity might be the Western annexation study area and the Heflin property.
Mr. Russell said that he has had inquiries about the Heflin property at the end of South Church Street
and added that it would require rezoning to a residential zoning district since it is currently zoned BP.
Mr. Weiss said that this does not help with business development and your best location to add business
4
October 28, 2026 Berryville Area Development Authority meeting

5 of 18

is the Hermitage South annexation study area. Mr. Stidham suggested changing the land use designation
for current Sub-Area 27B that was discussed at the last meeting from low-density residential to
commercial to allow some flex office uses. Chair Kitselman noted that a residential development at this
location would not be connected to town with pedestrian access. Mr. Weiss said that people have told
him that they want service industry businesses that we do not currently have like plumbers, electricians,
automotive, etc. Chair Kitselman said the public input workshop will be a good way to mine ideas from
the public. Mr. Weiss said that his concern with residential uses on the Heflin property is that it has
access to US 340 and is better suited for business uses than the Western annexation study area which is
on Westwood Road and close to schools.
Mr. Stidham suggested focusing on the area between the end of South Church Street down to
Smallwood Lane and whether that should be considered for business uses. He added that it depends on
how opposed the owners of the small residential lots along US 340 would be. Mr. Russell said that there
is interest in doing residential development along this area and business uses on the Smallwood farm.
Mr. Weiss said that he thinks the Smallwood farm is a much more problematic area to develop than
some of these other areas. Mr. Stidham said that as soon as we assign a higher residential density
designation to these areas, it is going to light a fuse for interest from developers. He asked how we can
balance this with a similar area for commercial development. Mr. Weiss said that while the owner of the
property on Westwood Road is interested in future development, it would not be in the immediate
future. Chair Kitselman said that property could be 10 years out from possible development.
Mr. Weiss said he also questioned the comments on self-storage businesses and he did not think they
would bring in much tax revenue in terms of machinery and tools. Mr. Russell added that the rental
rates could be different here than in the areas where Mr. Nulsen’s businesses are located. He also noted
that while these businesses are not users of public water and sewer, we are looking for businesses to
connect to the Town’s system. Chair Kitselman said that in our area, these businesses are single-story
buildings with roll-up doors that are not very attractive. He added that these businesses are often
developed at the lowest possible cost and Mr. Nulsen is probably referencing higher-end, multi-story
businesses.
Mr. Russell said that it would be good to include a design section in the Plan that would provide
examples of how we want future development to look. Chair Kitselman noted that it is important to
convey the population that is needed in order to support the types of businesses that residents are asking
for, such as a second grocery store. Mr. Weiss questioned whether there is a need for office space. Mr.
Russell said that he thinks there is a need for more medical office.
Mr. Stidham said that to Mr. Russell’s point about being more positive overall in the Plan wording, it
would be important to be more visionary in how we describe the sub-areas and annexation study areas as
opposed to just describing uses and densities. He added that maybe we should do vision statements for
each area. Chair Kitselman said that we could possibly get people’s ideas for commercial uses like we
are doing for the residential public input workshop. Mr. Stidham said that would be a good idea for a
possible second workshop to avoid trying to do too much at one workshop. Mr. Weiss said we will
likely get non-residential comments in response to the question about how we want the area to look in
the future. He added that you could ask participants what Berryville needs. Mr. Stidham replied that
this is where you might get participants to say they want a second grocery store which would allow us to
explain that this would require more rooftops. Mr. Russell added that we can explain how even though

5
October 28, 2026 Berryville Area Development Authority meeting

6 of 18

the town grew by 1,000 residents in the past 10 years, we still do not have enough residents to attract
certain businesses that people want.
Mr. Stidham reviewed the public input workshop working draft included in the meeting packet. He
noted that there are a lot of things that he could have included in the background presentation like a
description of sliding-scale zoning. He said it is important to keep the background information to no
more than 25-30 minutes because participants want to have their chance to speak. He added that the
information would be presented in the hopes that people will learn more and ask questions as opposed to
venting. Chair Kitselman said sliding-scale zoning is important and Mr. Stidham replied that he plans to
do a 30 second overview of it. Mr. Stidham said that he will be taking turns on the slides with Mr.
Russell so that the public can understand that this is a joint effort and not just one jurisdiction promoting
it. He then gave a brief overview of the presentation slides.
Mr. Weiss asked if “annexation” should be defined in the presentation. Chair Kitselman pointed out that
the slide on the annexation study areas references properties that are candidates for annexation. Mr.
Russell suggested showing what has already been annexed and built and refer to it as “town.” Chair
Kitselman said you can show how the town grew with Annexation Areas A and B and now we are on to
Annexation Area C. Mr. Weiss said you could note that annexation can take place via an agreement
between localities or it can occur in a hostile environment. He said it is important to state that
annexation is not adversarial here. Mr. Stidham added that he can note how Town and County staffs
have been invited to speak with Fauquier and Warrenton officials multiple times over the years about
our cooperative approach to annexation. He also said that it is important to emphasize how unique our
system is in the state and how it has operated successfully for decades. Mr. Weiss noted that towns have
the right to annex so it is not as though we are being pressured to develop.
Regarding recent residential development projects, Mr. Weiss suggesting noting how some of the
projects provided substantial cash proffers towards schools capital expenses.
Mr. Stidham reviewed the list of concerns about residential development. Chair Kitselman asked what
he meant on this slide by “loss of undeveloped Town properties.” Mr. Stidham replied that he is
referencing forested properties in town that would be cleared for residential development. Chair
Kitselman said that Hillson Grove would be an example of this. Mr. Hudson asked about Hillson Grove
developing at two units per acre even though the Plan recommends up to four units per acre. Mr.
Stidham replied that this developer chose by-right development at two units per acre instead of applying
to rezone for higher density. Mr. Russell noted that Berryville Glen is another example of a developer
choosing the by-right density instead of rezoning for higher density. Mr. Stidham said that if we want to
ensure that developers rezone to the planned density, then properties annexed into the Town should be
given the Open Space Residential (OSR) zoning designation at one unit per ten acres. Mr. Hudson
suggested explaining in the presentation how some of these developments could have been developed at
higher densities with rezoning. Mr. Weiss said we should be careful with this argument because the
Town wants higher densities in order to get more utility hookups but many residents are opposed to
higher densities. Mr. Russell noted that the Town likes density in order for more people to use the
downtown and explained how more residents are needed to support downtown businesses. Mr. Weiss
replied that this is the problem because opponents will say that they do not want more people in town
and more children in the school system. He cautioned to be prepared to answer if this is the response
that we get. Mr. Stidham said that he hears that one of the best things about Berryville is that it is safe
for children and they are able to walk around town after school without concerns that other areas may
6
October 28, 2026 Berryville Area Development Authority meeting

7 of 18

have. He also said the biggest problem with not allowing more residential development is it can
contribute to an aging population by not attracting younger families which is a question of vibrancy.
Ms. Smart said that we really need to have young families here. Chair Kitselman noted another benefit
of higher density in smaller areas is preservation of green space. Mr. Stidham added that he liked Mr.
Nulsen’s comment about having 20 houses on 20 acres versus 20 houses on two acres. Ms. Smart
suggested that this is a no-brainer in a town setting. Mr. Russell added that you have to build in
incentives to get the development that you want such as requiring rezoning, and Chair Kitselman added
that you could also offer tax credits.
Mr. Stidham said that if the State is going to mandate that localities provide a certain amount of housing,
then this quickly becomes a math problem for our planning to solve. He added that we are not going to
be like many other localities and rezone properties to attract development, we are going to follow the
Berryville Area Plan and only plan for what we can afford to support.
Mr. Stidham moved to a review of the discussion questions for participants. He asked the members if they
thought the question about residential development concerns should come before or after the question about
what future residential development should look like. Ms. Smart said the questions might solicit similar
responses. Mr. Hudson asked if Mr. Stidham wanted to ask a general question first followed up by a more
specific question. Mr. Stidham replied that we could play devil’s advocate with the responses on
residential concerns, such as new developments overloading the schools versus the actual enrollment
numbers over the past several years. Mr. Russell suggested including a chart showing school enrollment
numbers. Mr. Weiss suggested leaving the questions in the current order so people can focus on types of
development first instead of their concerns. Ms. Smart suggested adding information on the aging
population along with the waning school population as it might make people more amenable to allowing
density in town.
Regarding question 4 about participants’ thoughts on the annexation study areas, Ms. Smart asked what we
are hoping to get in terms of responses to this question. Mr. Stidham replied that we will review the maps
of the three areas and state that we are trying to develop a future vision for each of them. He added that if
the State mandates that we provide for more residential development, one of the best locations for it to go
would be by the high school where it can be best served by the schools, park, and pedestrian infrastructure.
He said we would be asking what the participants’ opinions are on the visions. Mr. Smart said that she
thinks the question as posed is too broad and maybe ask specifically about what future development and
uses in these areas should be. Mr. Weiss suggested asking, “How do you think the annexation study areas
should be utilized?” He said that if you ask it the other way, it might be assumed that the areas exist and
Ms. Smart said that you could get negative responses.
Ms. Smart asked how the public will be notified of the workshop. Mr. Stidham said that it will be
publicized on the County’s Facebook page and website. Mr. Weiss said we can get the Winchester Star to
run an article. Mr. Stidham noted that the Facebook postings for the County’s workshops were most
helpful as they were forwarded and reposted on other pages. Mr. Stidham also noted that planning
commissioners and Board members helped to redirect conversations at the workshops before they got out
of hand or too far into the weeds. He added that Authority members could do the same at this workshop if
necessary.
Mr. Stidham asked if the members were comfortable with the format and they agreed. He noted that he and
Mr. Russell will not be standing behind a podium and will be walking around the room during the
7
October 28, 2026 Berryville Area Development Authority meeting

8 of 18

discussion part of the workshop. He added that Authority members and elected officials who attend can be
sitting among the crowd and would be recognized at the beginning of the meeting.
Mr. Weiss asked about the next steps. Mr. Stidham said that we might have another workshop before
drafting the Plan but if we do not, we will have a similar workshop when the draft is complete and before
holding any formal public hearings. Mr. Weiss said that we will also explain the public hearing steps and
how both governing bodies will hold their own hearings and take action on the Plan.
Mr. Stidham reviewed a list of possible dates for the workshop. Members agreed to schedule the public
input workshop for Monday, November 16 and expressed interest in holding it at Enders Fire Hall. Mr.
Stidham said that he is planning to have the final draft of the presentation for final review at the next
meeting on October 28. Mr. Dondero suggested that participants be given an opportunity to submit
comments online in the event that they do not want to comment during the workshop. Mr. Stidham
suggested providing his and Mr. Russell’s email addresses and Mr. Russell said we could create a comment
portal.
5.

New Business ~ None

6.

Other Business ~ None

7.

Adjourn

The Authority voted 4-0-2 to adjourn the meeting at 2:36PM.
Motion to adjourn the meeting:
Allen Kitselman
AYE
George L. Ohrstrom, II
ABSENT
Harry Lee Arnold, Jr.
ABSENT

John Hudson
Selena Smart
David Weiss

___________________________________
Allen Kitselman, Chair

_________________________________
Brandon Stidham, Clerk

AYE (moved)
AYE
AYE (seconded)

8
October 28, 2026 Berryville Area Development Authority meeting

9 of 18

Clarke County Department of Planning
Berryville-Clarke County Government Center
101 Chalmers Court, Suite B
Berryville, VA 22611

TO:

Berryville Area Development Authority members

FROM:

Brandon Stidham, Planning Director
Terry Russell, Community Development Director

RE:

October 28, 2026 BADA meeting

DATE:

October 22, 2026

For the October 28 BADA meeting, we will be discussing two items – rescheduling the public
input workshop and seeking further input and direction on planning for areas on the south end of
town.
Public input workshop
The Berryville Area Plan public input workshop was planned to be held on Monday, November
16 however Town Council voted this month to defer action on the Friant rezoning until
November. Since we had discussed scheduling the workshop at least a few weeks after Town
Council makes a final decision on the rezoning application, we will need to move the meeting
ahead at least to December. December appears to be a busy month but one possible date is
Monday, December 14. If this date does not work, we should discuss whether to move the
workshop to January or February.
Southern Gateway Residential Growth Area (current Sub-Area 27B) and Craig’s Run Light
Industrial Area (current Sub-Area 23)
As a follow-up to recent discussions about the 7-acre Dorick/Byrd property that composes SubArea 27B in addition to other undeveloped properties in the immediate vicinity, Staff
recommends the Authority have a focused discussion on planning for this area as a potential
corridor. For your reference, enclosed is a map of this area extending roughly from the
Hermitage stormwater area south to the Smallwood Lane intersection with US 340. A list of the
properties along this corridor is included referencing their current ownership, zoning, and
annexation status. Also included is an excerpt from the 2015 Berryville Area Plan describing
Sub-Area 27B, excerpts from our 2024 reviews of this sub-area and the Craig’s Run Light
Industrial Area (current Sub-Area 23), and the map of the current Southern potential future
growth area/annexation study area.
Following the recent review of a proposed subdivision layout for the Dorick/Byrd property (SubArea 27B), it appears that the Authority may be interested in considering other recommended use
types instead of the current low-density residential designation. As we discussed, single-family
homes on a property that backs up to an electric substation and fronts closely to a primary
highway may not be the best, most optimal use of this property. It was also noted that if the
(540) 955-5132
www.clarkecounty.gov
October 28, 2026 Berryville Area Development Authority meeting

10 of 18

large farm property currently in the Hermitage South annexation study area were to be developed
in the future, this property could serve as one of the primary entrances for such development and
include complementary commercial uses. When we reviewed this sub-area in 2024, the
Authority’s position was to hold off on any possible changes until we completed discussion of
the Hermitage South annexation study area. Now would be an appropriate time to decide on any
possible changes to this sub-area as we move forward to developing the initial draft plan.
You will also note that Craig’s Run Light Industrial Area (Sub-Area 23) is listed again for
discussion. The Authority has discussed the development forms for this sub-area several times,
most notably in August 2024 and March 2026. Staff has attempted to get the Authority to reach
a consensus on possible changes to this sub-area. At both meetings, it appeared that the
Authority agreed to keep this sub-area for business uses but to change from business park to lowimpact commercial and office businesses that would be more compatible with the existing
nearby residences. Recent discussions appear to indicate that a consensus has not been reached
as some members continue to express interest in this sub-area being changed to residential uses
given the surrounding residential area, existing pedestrian connectivity to downtown, and
possibilities of eliminating the current through movement for South Church Street.
As a recap, Sub-Area 23 has been annexed into the Town and is zoned Business Park (BP) and
recommended for business park uses. It contains three lots, the two largest of which are owned
by Berryville Industrial Park LLC. The middle lot is owned by Clarke County and was intended
to provide the right of way for an extension of Jack Enders Boulevard in the event that a railroad
crossing could have been approved. Immediately to the south is a 19.5 acre lot also owned by
Berryville Industrial Park LLC that has fee simple access to Smallwood Lane. This lot remains
in the County and is within the Southern annexation study area. Together, the properties in
common ownership total approximately 48 acres and including the County’s lot would total
approximately 51 acres.
It may be prudent to discuss whether the properties on both sides of US 340 from Town limits to
Smallwood Lane should be considered as a corridor and possibly planned as a separate
annexation study area. On the east side of US 340, the existence of seven occupied residential
lots and four lots currently owned by a business (Trip’s Auto Sales) presents challenges to
development. However, nearly 50 acres in common ownership behind these lots with access to
US 340, South Church Street, and Smallwood Lane (and bordered by the railroad) provides an
opportunity for some form of significant planned development for future Town annexation.
These lots all currently fall within the Southern annexation study area but it is likely that these
properties would develop independently of the balance of the study area. Development and
annexation of lands east of the railroad would be contingent upon construction of a new
intersection at US 340 and Smallwood Lane and the upgrade of the Smallwood Lane rail
crossing in furtherance of the Town’s southeastern collector road project.
On the west side of US 340, the preliminary response from the owners of the Dorick/Byrd farm
is that they would be interested in developing their seven acres in Sub-Area 27B but they have
no plans to develop any other parts of their property in the near future. If we continue to
designate their farm as part of the Hermitage South annexation study area – including possible
future mixed-use development of residential and business uses – then recommendations for Sub-

October 28, 2026 Berryville Area Development Authority meeting

2

11 of 18

Area 27B and possibly the remaining frontage to Senseny Road should be included in the revised
Area Plan.
Given the challenges and opportunities on both sides of US 340 in this area, the Authority should
discuss whether to view these properties as a corridor for future development. This would
possibly include looking at this area as a separate annexation study area that would include
recommendations that tie into planning for the southeastern collector road on the Smallwood
farm property and long-range development opportunities on the Dorick/Byrd farm property.
Staff recommends the Authority begin discussing these issues with the goal of reaching a
consensus on direction to Staff.
If you have questions in advance of the meeting, please do not hesitate to contact us.

October 28, 2026 Berryville Area Development Authority meeting

3

12 of 18

Portion of Southern Annexation Study Area west of railroad
and Craig’s Run Light Industrial Area (current Sub-Area 23)

East side of US 340
Craig’s Run Light Industrial/Sub-Area 23 (annexed, zoned BP)
•
•

14-A-38 (13.08 acres) and 14-A-38A (16.2 acres) – Berryville Industrial Park LLC
14-A-38B (2.63 acres) – Clarke County

October 28, 2026 Berryville Area Development Authority meeting

13 of 18

Properties within Southern Annexation Study Area, no frontage on US 340 (not annexed,
zoned AOC):
•
•
•

14-A-29 – Berryville Industrial Park LLC (19.5 acres)
14-A-22 (5.0 acres) and 14-A-23 (1.0 acres) – VDOT
14-A-28 (1.67 acres) – Charles T. Hardesty, IV

Properties within Southern Annexation Study Area, frontage on US 340 (not annexed)
All lots are 2 acres or less
•

Residential properties (total of 7 lots with dwellings):
o Zoned RR – 14-A-35, 36, and 37
o Zoned AOC – 14-A-30, 31, and 14D-2-1, 2

•

Properties in commercial use (zoned AOC):
o 14-A-26, 27, and 14D-2-3 (Charles T. Hardesty, IV)
West side of US 340

Southern Gateway Residential Growth Area (not annexed, zoned DR-1)
• 443 S. Buckmarsh Street (14-A-11C, 7.01 acres) – Dorick/Byrd
Other properties (not annexed, all zoned AOC)
• 425 S. Buckmarsh Street (14-A-11B, 5.5 acres) – VFW
• 445 S. Buckmarsh Street (14-A-15, 0.9 acre) – REC substation
• 453 S. Buckmarsh Street (14-A-16, 3.03 acres) – Aurora historic home (Parker)
• 5770 Lord Fairfax Highway (14-A-17, approximately 1 acre) – Residential lot
(Gross/Gregory)
• 14-A-11 – Dorick/Byrd farm (210.88 acres)
• 14-A-12 – Dorick/Byrd farm (75 acres)

October 28, 2026 Berryville Area Development Authority meeting

14 of 18

2015 Berryville Area Plan description of Sub-Area 27B
SUB-AREA 27
Name:

HERMITAGE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH AREA (27A)
SOUTHERN GATEWAY RESIDENTIAL GROWTH AREA (27B)
Acreage:
44.4 acres (27A -- 37.4 acres, 27B – 7.0 acres)
Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential
Annexed:
Yes (27A) No (27B)
This Sub-Area 27 encompasses a 44 acre area in two non-contiguous areas in the southwest
corner of the Berryville Area. Sub-Area 27A consists of a portion of Phase V of the Hermitage
subdivision. The northern and eastern boundaries of the property is the Hermitage development.
The preliminary plat for the Hermitage Subdivision identifies 36 parcels within Sub-Area 27A.
The southern and western boundary borders County parcels not located in Annexation Area B.
Sub-Area 27B, approximately 7 acres in size, is located adjacent to US Route 340. The yield for
27B is 14 parcels. Both 27A and 27B are currently zoned DR-1 Detached Residential.
The clustering of moderate-to-low density residential housing would best accommodate the
environmental attributes of the property. Transportation planning should include not more than
one or two access points to Route 340 and minor street connections to Sub-Area 27 and
development areas to the north in the Town. Internal street systems should be residential in
character and should be aligned so as not to encourage non-local, non-residential traffic.
Pedestrian movement should be accommodated with provision of the sidewalks and pedestrian
paths.
The Low Density Residential land use designation, in combination with the historic access
corridor design regulations and the parameters of the critical environmental areas, provides for a
reasonably-scaled residential neighborhood which would be compatible with the ecological and
locational characteristics of the property. Including a portion of Phase V of the Hermitage
Subdivision, the preliminary plat identifies 36 parcels within Sub-Area 27A. The Sub-Area's
proximity to US Route 340 also places a portion of the Sub-Area within the historic access
corridor.
Due to the Sub-Area’s position in the watershed, storm water management and drainage should
carefully address the potential downstream runoff problems. Stormwater management facilities
should be coordinated with Sub-Area 26. Given good design proposals, the clustering of
residential units (which is strongly encouraged) should enhance environmental sensitivity and
best management practices. Southern exposures should be exploited, where possible, for optimal
solar orientation for road and house siting. Transportation planning should address well
organized interior neighborhood streets along with minor collector streets to properly serve SubArea 26 and the undeveloped areas in the southwest quadrant of the Town.
Long-range access opportunities to the commonly owned properties to the west of the Sub-Area
should be investigated. Site development in Sub-Area 27 should be coordinated with the
development of the adjacent Sub-Areas. Incremental and compact growth is encouraged with
higher density residential development on selected tracts where superior site design and phased

October 28, 2026 Berryville Area Development Authority meeting

15 of 18

developments are incorporated into site development schemes. Therefore, the Detached
Residential-2, DR-2, zoning district (with 2 dwelling units per net acre) should only be
considered for the Sub-Area at which time as superior development proposals are submitted
which address phasing, transportation issues, storm water management, quality site design,
services, and other applicable site design issues. If such site development guidelines are not
adhered to, the zoning district to be applied to Sub-Area 27 should be Detached Residential-1,
DR-1, allowing one dwelling unit per acre. The portion of the sub-area within 300 feet of the US
Route 340 is in the Historic Access Corridor Overlay District that establishes design guidelines
for non-single family residential.
From 2024 review of residential sub-areas
21.

Southern Gateway Residential Growth Area (County) – Former Sub-Area 27B
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Location – 443 South Buckmarsh Street (Dorick/Byrd property)
Land use – Low-density residential
Approximate area – 7 acres
Changes since last update – None
Residential yield (2015) – 14 dwelling units
Dwelling units used/Unbuilt remaining – 0/14
Excess dwelling units – 0

PROPOSED CHANGES:
•
Hold for further discussion.
From 2024 and 2026 reviews of business sub-areas
Craig’s Run Light Industrial Area
•
•
•

•
•

Current – Sub-Area 23
Proposed – Sub-Area 19

Location – Between South Church Street and NorfolkSouthern Railroad (Town)
Land use – Light Industrial/Research
Approximate area and current uses – 3 lots, 31.91 acres:
o 14-A-38 -- 13.08 acres; vacant
o 14-A-38B – 2.63 acres; vacant, owned by County
(intended to be right of way for future Jack Enders Blvd.
extension to US 340)
o 14-A-38A – 16.2 acres; vacant
Zoning – BP
Utilities – None

October 28, 2026 Berryville Area Development Authority meeting

16 of 18

Issues and Discussion Questions:
•
8/28/2024 and 3/25/2026 – Recommend low-impact commercial and office uses
compatible with nearby residential properties
•
Language regarding connectivity to Jack Enders Blvd. needs to be updated.

October 28, 2026 Berryville Area Development Authority meeting

17 of 18

YO

RK

LN

RD
FA
I

JA
C

SMALLWOOD W W III
122 acres
VIRGINIA DEPT OF HIGHWAYS
1 acres

MERCKE BRENT
acres
19.5 acres

MERCKE BRENT H
16.2 acres

COUNTY OF CLARKE
2.63 acres

October 28, 2026 Berryville Area Development Authority meeting

LN

ND

KE
ER
SB
LV
D

ST

MC
G

B

MORRIS-MCNAIR LLC
91.6 acres

NE

UIR

EC

IR

B

L

RY
RD
CT

SB
U

EL
W
R
U

SP
RI
NG

600

300

0

600 Feet

18 of 18

Ownership and Acreage information accurate as of September 2015

A-5

ROA
D V Growth Area
MAP 5 -- Southern Potential Future
IEW
LN

LW
OO
D

µ

SM
AL

NELSON PAUL BLAINE & KELLEY D
1.6 acres

VIRGINIA DEPT OF HIGHWAYS
5 acres

LO
RD

LN

Document Path: G:\arcgis_maps\bap\BAP_update_2013\MAP_5__southern_growth_BAP.mxd

Historical/Cultural preservation

Environmental Conservation

Institutional/Public

Light Industrial/Research

Business/Office

Highway-Visitor Commercial

Medium Density Older Persons Residential

Medium-Low Density Residential (4 units/acre)

Low Density Residential (2 units/acre)

Berryville Town Limits as of 01/01/07

Parcel Boundary

Conservation Easement

Railroads

Proposed Roads

Existing Roads

Roads

Perennial Stream

Intermittent Stream

Railroad

SE
NY

WY
RF
AX
H

MERCKE BRENT H
13.08 acres

JO
SE
PH
I

RIN
SP

YL
N
LIN
DE

D
RY
R
GS
BU

SE
N

ON
LT
MI
EY
LL
A
V