On the agenda: King George meeting — data center (Aug 29)

AGENDA
Joint Work Session of the
King George County Board of Supervisors and King George
County Planning Commission
Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 6:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER
 Board of Supervisors – Chairman Granger
 Planning Commission – Chairman Moss
AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA
PUBLIC COMMENT
 Comments will be limited to three minutes per person, in order to afford everyone
an opportunity to speak. If comments relate to a specific public hearing item, we ask
that you offer those comments at the time of the public hearing.
PRESENTATION BY THE BERKLEY GROUP
 Public Response to Draft Ordinance
 Overview of Next Steps
ADJOURNMENT
 Board of Supervisors to Tuesday, September 5, 2023
 Planning Commission to Tuesday, September 12, 2023

Those interested in attending this meeting who may have a need for an interpreter or hearing assistance equipment due to a hearing
impairment should please contact our office at 540-775-9181 (TDD 540-775-2049) by noon on the Friday before the meeting.
A final agenda with all supporting documentation will be available on the county’s website at www.kinggeorgecountyva.gov.

King George County Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance Update
Worksession #11 Memo
August 29, 2023
Overview
King George County is updating, modernizing, and restructuring the zoning and subdivision ordinances
into one seamless regulatory document. The revised zoning and subdivision ordinance will:
•
•
•
•

Provide streamlined and user-friendly regulations;
Incorporate best planning practices and current state code requirements;
Address the goals and strategies identified in the Comprehensive Plan; and
Consider citizen needs and issues identified through the public engagement process.

This process has been guided by County staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors,
with opportunities for input from stakeholders and citizens.

Agenda
The August 29th meeting will be a joint meeting between the Board of Supervisors and the Planning
Commission. The focus will be:
• Review Public Response to the Draft Ordinance
• Project Next Steps
The following agenda is provided as an outline for discussion:
1.
Project Progress – 5 minutes
2.
Review of Public Response & Ordinance Discussion – 120 minutes
3.
Next Steps – 5 minutes

Schedule & Progress to Date
The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance has been completely drafted and is ready for review and
refinement. Progress to date includes:
•
•

•

Staff Kickoff – Held on July 14, 2021. The Berkley Group conducted a kickoff meeting with King
George County staff to review the scope of work and deliverable items.
Joint BOS and PC Kickoff – Held on September 15, 2021. During this meeting, the Berkley Group
gave a presentation on the scope of work, schedule, and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
diagnostic report.
Public Engagement – Public engagement offered opportunities to collect community feedback on
priorities for the ordinance update. An online public survey was conducted from October 1-31;
public workshops were held on October 20 and October 26; and stakeholder interviews were
conducted on October 26.

Worksession #11 Memo | Page 1 of 3

King George County Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance Update
Worksession #11 Memo
August 29, 2023
•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
•

•

Planning Commission Worksession #1 – Held on November 30, 2021. The focus of this meeting
was to discuss the overall public engagement summary and key findings, and to review the
proposed structure of the revised ordinance.
Planning Commission Worksession #2 – Held on January 25, 2022. The focus of this meeting was
to review and discuss drafts of Article I, In General, Article II, Administration, Article III, Permits
and Applications, and Article IX, Nonconformities. Edits and revisions were discussed and sent back
for additional PC review on March 1, 2022.
Planning Commission Worksession #3 – Held on March 29, 2022. The focus of this meeting was to
review and discuss drafts of Article IV, Primary Zoning Districts and Article V, Overlay Zoning
Districts (sans Military Overlay). Edits and revisions were discussed and sent back for additional PC
review on May 2, 2022.
Planning Commission Worksession #4 – Held on May 31, 2022. The focus of this meeting was to
review and discuss drafts of Article VI, Use Matrix and Article V, Division 5, Military Compatibility
Overlay District. Edits and revisions were discussed and sent back for additional PC review on July
5, 2022.
Planning Commission Worksession #5 – Held on July 26, 2022. The focus of this meeting was to
review and discuss drafts of Article VII, Use Performance Standards. A comment tracker was
created and includes all comments from Planning Commission and staff, along with Berkley Group
responses and recommended changes. The comment tracker was provided to staff on September
2, 2022, and Berkley Group has incorporated staff revisions.
Planning Commission Worksession #6 – Held on September 27, 2022. The focus of this meeting
was to review and discuss the draft of Article VIII, Community Design Standards. A comment
tracker was created and includes all comments from Planning Commission and staff, along with
Berkley Group responses and recommended changes. The comment tracker was provided to staff
on November 8, 2022, and Berkley Group has incorporated staff revisions.
Planning Commission Worksession #7 – Held on November 29, 2022. The focus of this meeting
was to review and discuss the draft of Article X, Subdivision. A comment tracker was created and
includes all comments from Planning Commission and staff, along with Berkley Group responses
and recommended changes. The comment tracker was provided to staff on December 14, 2022,
and Berkley Group has incorporated staff revisions.
Joint Worksession #8 – Held on January 24, 2023. The focus of this meeting was to review project
status, highlight ordinance changes, and determine next steps.
Joint Worksession #9 – Held on April 25, 2023. The focus of this meeting was to review use
standards and planning best practices for utility-scale solar facilities, data centers, and industrial
noise.
Joint Worksession #10 – Held on May 30, 2023. The focus of this meeting was to review use
standards and planning best practices for battery energy storage systems and power plants.

Worksession #11 Memo | Page 2 of 3

King George County Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance Update
Worksession #11 Memo
August 29, 2023
•

Public Open House – Held on July 27, 2023. The Berkley Group presented the draft ordinance to
the public for feedback and additional revisions prior to adoption. An exit survey seeking feedback
was available to the public from July 27 – August 6. Comments submitted by the public, Planning
Commission, and Board of Supervisors were entered into a comment tracker for discussion at the
Pre-Adoption Worksessions to be held August 29 and September 26, 2023.

Review of Public Response
See Attachment A for a list of all public comments received during the open house and in the exit survey
as well as comments from Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, and staff. The comments supplied
in the comment tracker are grouped by commenting body and then organized by topic/location in the
ordinance. All comments include a response by the Berkley Group.
This worksession and the next worksession (September 26) will be dedicated to working through these
comments and coming to consensus on ordinance edits. Due to the considerable number of comments
received, not every comment can be discussed. Rows highlighted in gray have been selected as top priority
for discussion during this worksession. Rows highlighted in blue indicate a need for staff or County
Attorney review. The subsequent worksession will contain a revised set of priority items for discussion.
Please review the Berkley Group responses and during the next worksession there will be time to confirm
general agreement: (1) to act according to Berkley Group’s recommendations or (2) for the Board of
Supervisors and Planning Commissioners to initiate discussion of items that need further discussion and
direction.

Next Steps
This is the first of two joint worksessions for refining the proposed ordinance. The scope includes the
following next steps:
•
•
•

September 26 – 2nd Joint Worksession with the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission
October – Incorporation of edits
November & December – Public Hearings

Worksession #11 Memo | Page 3 of 3

King George Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance - Open House Draft | Comments
#

Reviewer

Date
Received

Topic

Section

Comment

Berkley Group Response
Public Comments

1

2

3

Public

Public

Public

8/7/23

8/7/23

7/27/23

1-1-2(A)(1)
1-1-2(A)(6)
1-1-2(A)(9)

These provisions appear to be written for another jurisdiction.

These regulations are provided in Articles 13 and 15, respectively, of the existing Ordinance. They
are proposed to be removed from the Zoning Ordinance and placed as a separate ordinance within
the King George County Code. These regulations have been minorly updated for readability,
reorganization, and updated references to Code of Virginia. No revisions recommended.

BZA Appointments

2-3-1(A)(1)

State Code Sec. 15.2-2308 allows the Governing Body to request the Circuit Court to appoint up to
three alternate members [in addition to the 7 main members]. This is advisable to avoid meeting
cancellations due to a quorum not being present.

Comment noted and can be revised upon direction from the PC/BOS. Previous direction was to
appoint seven BZA members without alternates. No revisions recommended.

Enforcement

2-4-2
2-4-3

General violations language should match language regarding noise violations. The corrective time
limits should be provided.

Comment noted; 2-4-3 (C) (4) requires the ZA to provide a reasonable time period to correct the
violation. Due to the variety of violations that will be enforced under this Division, the ZA should
assess and require time limits on a case-by-case basis. No revisions recommended.

Wetlands Ordinance

4

Public

8/7/23

Proffer Amendments

3-3-3(A)

5

Public

8/7/23

ROW Dedication
Requirements

3-6-7(D)(1)

6

Public

8/7/23

Site Plan Amendments

3-6-9(B)(1)
3-6-9(B)(2)

7

Public

8/7/23

Posting Notice on Property

3-10-3(A)(4)

8

Public

8/7/23

Setback Measurements

4-2-4(C)(1)

9

Public

8/7/23

Steep Slopes

4-2-5(B)
4-2-5(C)

10

Public

8/7/23

11

Public

8/3/23

Structures in Required
Setbacks
Industrial & Agricultural
Setbacks

4-3-1(A)
4-4-1
4-7-1

12

Public

8/7/23

I District Height Regulations

4-7-1
Table IV-6

13

Public

8/7/23

BZA Appeals

5-2-10

14

Public

8/7/23

Water Quality Impact
Assessment Submittal
Requirements

5-2-7(F)(1)

State Code Sec. 15.2-2302(B) allows proffer amendments that “…do not affect conditions of use or
Comment noted; 3-3-3 (A) (1) states "Do not materially affect…" This is intended to capture that
density, a local governing body may waive the requirements for a public hearing…”. Adoption of this
provision of state code. Recommend revising to state: Do not materially affect (i.e., use or density)
provision should be considered for the convenience of the County and the property owner.
the overall proposal…
Examples would include changes to the site layout or building architecture.
This code provision constitutes a taking of private property for a public use involving as a condition
Comment noted and can be revised upon direction from the PC/BOS. This provision was carried over
of approval of a by-right use. Right of way dedication should only be involved as a proffered
from the original ordinance. Recommend County Attorney review.
condition with a rezoning.
Sub-paragraph 2 should be modified to refer to approved concept plans proffered with a rezoning or
Comment noted; 3-6-9(B)(2) references Concept Plans, which are part of the rezoning and Special
conditioned as part of a special exception would need to go back through the appropriate rezoning
Exception process. Recommend revising text to clarify Concept Plans approved as part of a rezoning
or special exception process. Making a major change to a site plan for by-right development is not a
or Special Exception permit.
zoning change that constitutes a public hearing process.
This requirement is onerous. Recommend that the County provide the signs. The design of the signs
Comment noted and can be revised upon direction from the PC/BOS. This provision was carried over
should be able to be mounted on to metal wire frame similar to temporary signs commonly seen
from the original ordinance. No revisions recommended.
along roadsides and used by other jurisdictions.
Recommend when the Zoning Administrator makes a setback decision that it be annotated on the
Comment noted. Noting ZA determinations on the cover sheet would be a procedure and not an
approved site plan for a building permit. This will provide information to future property owners and
ordinance requirement. No revisiosions recommended.
subsequent County reviewers.
Comment noted; the definition of steep slope provides additional clarification and comes from the
County Comprehensive Plan. Recommend further clarification be added to 4-2-5, such as:
This definition does not explain to the public or the Zoning Administrator how this is measured. Is
For purposes of this Section, slope is calculated as a percentage as follows: vertical rise is divided by
the measurement taken over 1 foot, 100 feet or 1,000 feet? Walk out basements are typically found
horizontal run, and then the resulting decimal is multiplied by 100. For purposes of this Section, run is
on slopes steeper than 15%. VDOT will allow up to 50% (2:1) slopes for cut embankments.
defined as the shortest horizontal distance between the first and third of three consecutive two foot
Recommend setting a measurement distance and a graphic describing how a slope is calculated if
(2’) vertical contour intervals (unless a different representation that is equally effective is approved
15% is to be retained.
by the Zoning Administrator). It is not necessary that the run be contained entirely on the property of
the applicant or developer if the steep slope at issue extends onto an adjacent property.
This section does not cover above or below ground stairs. Recommend that stairs be included in
Recommend revising 4-3-1(A)(3) to include exterior stairs.
(A)(3).
Increase setbacks between industrial and agricultural zoning that is next to residential zoning.

Comment noted. No revision recommended.

Stipulates that the maximum height of the principal structure is 35 feet with a footnote that
Comment noted and can be revised upon direction from the PC/BOS. BG originally recommended
buildings may erected up to 50 feet high provided that all setbacks are increased 1 foot for each foot allowing additional height case-by-case through the SE process. The PC/BOS direction stipulated that
in height over 35 feet. This would prevent the construction of multi-story data center buildings since data centers should be subject to the underlying district height limits (without an option for
data centers typically have a ceiling height of approximately 30 feet.
additional height through the SE process) due to fire safety considerations. No revisions
Comment noted; Recommend revising 5-2-10 last sentence to read: If the BZA finds that the
The BZA does not approve or deny plans. They would either uphold or overturn the Administrator’s
applicant's plan does not meet the above stated criteria, they shall uphold the decision of the
decision.
Administrator.
This seems to preclude the option of making an electronic submission. Recommend requiring 5
Comment noted; recommend adding text to 5-2-7(F)(1) to allow paper copies and electronic
paper copies or one electronic copy in a format acceptable to the Administrator. Electronic copies
submission as deemed acceptable by the Administrator.
can save the County time by not needing to scan the documents and save file storage space.

1 of 12

King George Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance - Open House Draft | Comments
#

Reviewer

Date
Received

Topic

5-4-5(D)

Section

15

Public

8/7/23

Traffic Impact Analysis for
Site Plans

16

Public

8/7/23

Use Not Provided

6-2-1

17

Public

7/27/23

Zoning Map; Permitted Uses

Table VI-1

18

Public

7/30/23

Dwelling, Accessory

Table VI-1
7-3-2

19

Public

7/27/23

20
21
22
23
24

Public
Public
Public
Public
Public

8/5/23
8/5/23
8/5/23
8/5/23
8/2/23

Recreation Facility, NonCommercial
Industrial Use Permissions
Industrial Use Permissions
Industrial Use Permissions
Industrial Use Permissions
Data Center Permissions

25

Public

8/3/23

Industrial Use Permissions

Table VI-1

26

Public

8/7/23

Industrial Use Permissions

Table VI-1

27
28

Public
Public

8/6/23
8/5/23

Industrial Use Permissions
Industrial Use Permissions

Table VI-1
Table VI-1

29

Public

8/7/23

Agriculture, Residential

7-2-3

30

Public

8/7/23

Biosolid Application

7-2-5

31

Public

8/7/23

Dwelling, Multi-Family

7-3-5(A)

32

Public

8/7/23

Dwelling, Multi-Family

7-3-5(E)

33

Public

7/27/23

Home Occupations

7-3-9
7-3-10

Table VI-1
Table VI-1
Table VI-1
Table VI-1
Table VI-1
Table VI-1

Comment

Berkley Group Response

It is not clear as to the purpose of requiring a traffic study for a site plan. The County cannot require
Comment noted. These site plans are submitted for developments within the Highway Corridor
any off-site improvements based on the recommendation of the traffic study. This would be an
Overlay and are important to demonstrate adequate ingress and egress. No revision recommended.
unnecessary cost to the developer.
This code section seems a bit short sighted. As technology and business models change, there will
likely be proposed uses that are not contemplated in the current list of defined uses. The Zoning
Administrator would be either pressed to make the proposed use fit into a current definition or the
Comment noted. Uses have broad names and broad definitions to aid in acceptance of future uses
proponent would be resigned to petition the Board of Supervisors for a zoning text amendment.
and Zoning Administrator determinations. Not all uses will fit and it is not recommended that they
This would be unproductive if the County wants the proposed use, but the nature and extent of the
be allowed to apply as a Special Exception in any district. Uses that are not provided should be
use may best lend itself to one or two locations in the County. Recommend that Uses not provided in
carefully considered to be placed in the appropriate district(s) and a definition added as well as use
the zoning ordinance be permitted by Special Exception. A great example would be a theme park.
standards if applicable. No revision recommended.
The County might want one for tax revenue purposes but, it is not a defined use. The Zoning
Administrator may have a difficult time finding a theme park to fit into the definition of active
recreation.
Some A-1 areas along Route 3 should be zoned A-2 or A-3. C-1 and C-2 areas around the base should
Comment noted. This update does not include map amendments. No revision recommended.
address base needs and plan for future uses.
• Questions regarding attached vs. detached ADUs and whether they are by-right or SE in residential
and ag districts. The proposed ordinance only allows attached accessory dwellings in R-1, R-2, and R3, and only detached accessory dwellings in A-1 and A-2.
• Accessory dwellings are restricted from being used as Airbnbs (not allowed to be offered, leased,
Comment noted. These restrictions were requested by the Planning Commission and can be revised
or rented for less than 30 days) - there is no benefit to this.
upon PC/BOS direction. No revisions recommended.
• A provision from the original ordinance was removed that allowed for two principal structures on
all agriculture and residential lots. Allowing only agriculture lots and not residential lots the ability
for detached dwellings in the new ordinance essentially strips owners of residential lots of a right
they already had.
The use Recreational Facility, Non-Commercial should be allowed by SE in the C-1 and C-2 districts. Recommend revising Table VI-1 to allow Recreational Facility, Non-Commercial by Special Exception
This would support rail-to-trail projects.
in C-1 and C-2 districts. Additionally, it may be added as SE in industrial districts as well, if desired.
These uses need to be by special exception not By-Right.
Please keep all these uses as special exception, and not by right.
Must be by special exception.
Please keep all these uses as by special exception not By-Right.
Comment noted. Following direction from the PC/BOS at the April and May 2023 work sessions, data
Need to keep data centers in special exception.
centers, battery energy storage facilities, electricity generation facilities, and utility-scale solar are
I'm glad to see the noise limits set to 60 dBA during the day and 55 dBA at night. I would like to see
permitted by Special Exception only.
data centers, battery storage, and utility scale solar facilities by Special Exception only.
Businesses should be required to get permission by special exception not to be able to do whatever
they want by-right.
Please keep all uses as by special exception, NOT as by-right.
Like that new industrial uses are by SE.
Comment noted. No revision recommended.
This section should have provisions regarding applicability. As currently written, a one-hundred-acre This section applies only to "Agriculture, Residential" uses in R-1 and R-2 districts. Therefore a farm
farm zoned Agriculture would be limited to six chickens with no roosters.
in A-1, A-2, or A-3 would not be subject to a limitation of six chickens.
Recommend moving the entire code section out of the zoning ordinance. It should be located within
Chapter 13, Solid Waste. Placing it in the zoning ordinance is problematic from an enforcement
Chapter 13 pertains to solid waste disposal and landfills. Section 7-2-5 pertains to the land
standpoint. Once applied, it would be very difficult for the property owner to remove the biosolids application of biosolids. The application of biosolids is typically has a state inspector that coordinates
to abate the violation. Chapter 13 – Solid Waste already defines sludge and sludge is included in the with the Zoning Office.
definition of solid waste.
This provision is redundant and should be removed.
Comment noted. Text is included for clarity. No revisions recommended.
This provision is very vague and is difficult to design as well as difficult to enforce. It should be
Comment noted. No revisions recommended.
removed.
Comment noted. The intent for home occupation B is to be of lesser intensity than a traditional
Some home based occupations occur on an adjacent lot and not on the parcel of the primary
commercial setting and retain the character of the surrounding neighborhood or area. Home
residence. Adjacent parcels under the same ownership should be allowed in the use standards.
occupation C may be more intense and does contain standards for screening. Recommend revising 73-10 (A) to allow use of an adjacent parcel under the same ownership as the primary dwelling.

2 of 12

King George Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance - Open House Draft | Comments
#

Reviewer

Date
Received

Topic

Section

34

Public

8/7/23

Campgrounds

7-4-1(H)
7-4-1(I)

These provisions are very subjective and will be difficult to enforce.

35

Public

8/7/23

Campgrounds

7-4-1(J)

This is better suited to be in Chapter 6.5 – Fire Prevention. and Protection and in part is covered in
Chapter 13 – Solid Waste
These standards are subjective and will be difficult to enforce.

36

Public

8/7/23

Camp, RV Park

7-4-2(I)(2)
7-4-2(M)
7-4-2(N)

37

Public

8/7/23

Camp, RV Park

7-4-2(O)

38

Public

8/7/23

Shelter, Animal

7-4-4(C)(2)

39

Public

8/7/23

Telecommunications Facility

7-4-5(K)(6)

40

Public

8/7/23

Telecommunications Facility

7-4-5(O)

41

Public

8/7/23

Telecommunications Facility

7-4-5(P)

42

Public

8/7/23

Adult Use

7-5-1

43

Public

8/7/23

Outdoor Sales, Seasonal

7-5-10(B)

44

Public

8/7/23

Parking Lot, Commercial

7-5-11

45

Public

8/7/23

Recreation/Entertainment,
Commercial Outdoor

7-5-13(C)(6)

46

Public

8/7/23

47

Public

8/7/23

48

Public

8/7/23

Restaurant, Mobile

7-5-14

49

Public

8/7/23

Vehicle Sales/Service

7-5-15(B)
7-5-15(C)

50

Public

8/7/23

EV Charging Station

7-5-4(4)

51

Public

8/7/23

EV Charging Station

7-5-4(6)

52

Public

8/7/23

Event Venue

7-5-6(D)
7-5-6(D)(1)

53

Public

8/7/23

Gas Station - Traffic Analysis

7-5-7(D)(4)

Recreation/Entertainment,
Commercial Outdoor
Recreation/Entertainment,
Commercial Outdoor

7-5-13(D)(2)
7-5-13(E)

Comment

This is better suited to be in Chapter 6.5 – Fire Prevention and Protection and in part is covered in
Chapter 13 – Solid Waste.
This is a subjective standard and would be difficult to enforce.
This appears to be in violation of State Code Sec. 15.2-2316.4.8 since such an agreement is an
application requirement. If the application does not contain an agreement, it would be incomplete
and therefore denied.

Berkley Group Response
Comment noted. These provisions provide general standards for safety, health, and welfare, and to
help during instances of complaint. No revisions recommended.
Comment noted. These provisions are intended to mitigate the land use impacts generated by a
Campground. No revisions recommended.
Comment noted. These provisions are intended to mitigate the land use impacts generated by a RV
Park. No revisions recommended.
Comment noted. This provision is intended to mitigate the land use impacts generated by a RV Park.
No revisions recommended.
Comment noted. This item is there to help during instances of complaint. No revision recommended.
The County Attorney has also submitted revisions related to state code requirements for
telecommunications facilities; this section will be revised accordingly.

The County Attorney has also submitted revisions related to state code requirements for
telecommunications facilities; this section will be revised accordingly.
The County Attorney has also submitted revisions related to state code requirements for
This appears to be in violation of State Code Sec. 15.2-2316.4.2.4.
telecommunications facilities; this section will be revised accordingly.
This use would be subject to Industrial District screening requirements per Article VIII. Additional
This code section does not list any screening standards, only distance standards.
screening to mitigate impacts can be required through the SE process.
The definition of “outdoor sales, seasonal” does not include the term “stand”. Recommend that no Comment noted; roadside farm stands are defined and regulated separately. Language can be
permit for seasonal outdoor sales shall exceed sixty (60) days in duration.
revised for consistency with definition. 7-5-10(B) currently includes a 60 day limitation.
It is not clear if this section was intended only for passenger vehicles or could allow commercial
vehicles. The definition also does not specify what types of vehicles are allowed to park at the use.
Recommend that the type of vehicles permitted be specified since a recreational vehicle storage lot This section and the associated definition applies to paid parking lots/garages that generate
is separate use and has its own standards. If commercial vehicle parking is to be excluded from
commercial profit. No revisions recommended.
commercial parking lots, recommend adding a definition and standards for a commercial vehicle
parking lot.
This provision pertains to the ongoing maintenance of grass parking areas, while Chapter 6 Erosion &
This is a subjective standard. Enforcement of erosion violations is subject to Chapter 6 of the County
Sediment Control pertains to erosion mitigation during site development. This does not conflict. No
Code. Recommend eliminating to avoid code conflicts.
revisions recommended.
What will be the administrative process to be followed by the Board of Supervisors? Will the Board Comment noted. Recommend revising text of 7-5-13 (D) (2)(i)(a) to read: Where a Special Exception
permit is required, the height of the screen may be lowered by the Board of Supervisors…
be granting a waiver or exception? Does this involve a public hearing?
This is very vague. Determining what is an adequate level of liability insurance will be difficult. If this Comment noted. Not all rec/entertainment businesses will have the same liability needs. No revision
is to be required, recommend setting a minimum dollar value per occurrence.
recommended.
This entire section should be deleted. Mobile restaurants are not a use. They are the use of a vehicle
and are regulated by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles and the Virginia Department of
Health. Mobile restaurant vehicles are prohibited from being connected to permanent utilities
Comment noted. This is a use that can be regulated through zoning. King George should consider
because they are motor vehicles rather than a building. If it is to be regulated, the standards should enforceability of all regulations. No revisions recommended.
be applicable to the parking provisions in Article VIII, Division V. It is very difficult to enforce zoning
regulations on a mobile vehicle that can change its location daily.
Please clarify if the location of parking for display vehicles is restricted to the sides and rear of the
Comment noted. Recommend revising 7-5-15(B)(2) to clarify: All parking not related to vehicle sales
building Sec.7-5-15 (B)(2).
display shall be located on the side or rear of the establishment.
This provision is unclear regarding the curb. Is curb required to be installed at all EV parking spaces?
The County Attorney has also submitted revisions related to EV charging stations; this section will be
The graphic appears to show a wheel stop in front of the vehicle. It is unclear as to the purpose of
revised accordingly.
the curb.
The County Attorney has also submitted revisions related to EV charging stations; this section will be
This provision is subjective with regards to aesthetic upkeep and may be difficult to enforce.
revised accordingly.
Comment noted. As written, Event Venues must comply with all provisions in Section 10-8 of the
Recommend deleting (D) and replacing it with (1). The County Code has different standards.
County Code (such as measurement and enforcement), and additionally have a specific, intentional
Potential code conflicts should be avoided.
restriction to limit Event Venue noise between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.
This is very vague and subjective. Recommend deleting or providing more detail under what
Comment noted. The intent during drafting was to allow flexibility. No revisions recommended.
circumstances the analysis would be required and how it should be prepared.
This appears to be in violation of State Code Sec. 15.2-2316.4.2.4.

3 of 12

King George Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance - Open House Draft | Comments
#

Reviewer

Date
Received

Topic

Section

54

Public

8/7/23

Kennel, Commercial

7-5-8(C)(2)

55

Public

7/27/23

Battery Energy Storage
Facilities

7-6-1

56

Public

7/27/23

Battery Energy Storage
Facilities

7-6-1(I)(1)

57

Public

7/27/23

Battery Energy Storage
Facilities

7-6-1(K)(4)

58

Public

7/27/23

Data Centers

7-6-5
Table VI-1
Definition

59

Public

8/6/23

Data Centers

7-6-5

60

Public

8/5/23

Data Centers

7-6-5

61

Public

8/6/23

Data Centers

7-6-5

62

Public

8/7/23

Outdoor Furnaces

7-7-6

63

Public

7/27/23

Utility-Scale Solar

7-7-10

64

Public

7/27/23

Utility-Scale Solar

7-7-10

Comment
This is a subjective standard and will be difficult to enforce.
For BESS:
1. Fire Detection Draft Ordinance [Section 7-6-1(I)(1)]: “Each individual battery shall have 24/7
automated fire detection and extinguishing technology built in.”
Open Road: Depending on what is meant by “individual battery” this technology may not exist.
Individual battery cells are not sold with fire detection/extinguishing technology. This could be
essentially a ban on BESS.

Berkley Group Response
Comment noted. This item is there to help during instances of complaint. No revisions
1) This provision is intended to ensure that fire detection systems are installed that can precisely
locate dangerous battery malfunctions and fires. If the technology is not literally installed on
individual batteries, the intent is still to have individual batteries tied to fire detection and
extinguishing systems, so that fire safety is routinely monitored and systems installed to suppress
fire. Recommended clarification: All individual batteries shall be connected to a 24/7 automated fire
detection and extinguishing system, consistent with NFPA 855, Standard for the Installation of
Stationary Energy Storage Systems, to detect the precise location of a malfunctioning battery and
suppress fire events.

2. Fence & Permit Revocation Draft Ordinance [Section 7-6-1(K)]: “Failure to maintain the security
fencing shall result in revocation of the Zoning Permit and the facility’s decommissioning.”
Open Road: We have already commented on this (see attached; bottom of next-to-last page). This
2) Revise Section 7-6-1(K)(4) to state: Failure to maintain the security fencing shall result in the
could make any BESS un-financeable. There must be some notice and cure opportunity. This
revocation of the Zoning Permit following notice of violation and enforcement as provided in Article
suggests a permit for a $100m facility could be revoked immediately upon the “failure to maintain” a
II, Division 4 of this Ordinance.
part of the fence.
This provision is intended to ensure that fire detection systems are installed that can precisely locate
dangerous battery malfunctions and fires. If the technology is not literally installed on individual
batteries, the intent is still to have individual batteries tied to fire detection and extinguishing
For BESS (Battery storage) projects, Section 7-6-1 (I)(1) states "Each individual battery shall have
systems, so that fire safety is routinely monitored and systems installed to suppress fire.
automated fire dection." This is not possible because the technology doesn't exist.
Recommended clarification: All individual batteries shall be connected to a 24/7 automated fire
detection and extinguishing system, consistent with NFPA 855, Standard for the Installation of
Stationary Energy Storage Systems, to detect the precise location of a malfunctioning battery and
Revise Section 7-6-1(K)(4) to state: Failure to maintain the security fencing shall result in the
For BESS (Battery storage) projects, for fence and permit revocation there must be a "cure period" to
revocation of the Zoning Permit following notice of violation and enforcement as provided in Article
correct issues.
II, Division 4 of this Ordinance.
Use and all associated standards need to cover both singular and plural (Data Center vs. Data
Centers).

Comment noted. Recommend County Attorney review to determine if clarification is needed.

I would appreciate having more space between where the residents properties end and these data
centers begin. Larger setbacks and larger and deeper buffers from residential properties and homes.
Please, I am requesting setbacks and buffers to be as far back as possible. I ask this so that King
George doesn’t lose its great appeal of beautiful, rich, farmland, trees, and a sky full of stars at night.
Comment noted. The transitional buffer requirements for data centers were increased following the
I moved here from Baltimore City, with the option of moving to downtown Washington, DC. My
husband and I chose King George in 2021 because it offered our children the opportunity to grow up April 2023 work session.
somewhere safe, without sound or noise pollution, and surrounded by nature and agriculture. That’s
why we moved here and now I just don’t know if King George is a place we want to call home
anymore. Not if our views, sound levels, and peace are going to change. My home is directly effected
by this rezoning, on Fletchers Chapel Rd.
Honestly no King George residents want a huge group of data centers droning away across the street
from them so no I am not overall happy about this especially since I have to put up with the massive
dump smell across the street already. I think the County should give way more consideration to the Comment noted. No revision recommended.
quality of life the residents who live here have than big corporations who are here just to make a
buck.
Consider relocating these provisions to Chapter 6.5, Fire Prevention and Protection, of the County
Comment noted. This text is in the current Zoning Ordinance and is carried over and established as a
Code.
use to accommodate previous text. No revisions recommended.
Utility solar should be a special exception but the parameters of the project (i.e., max acreage)
should not be arbitrarily specified. The projects should be accessed based on how they meet the
County's objectives. Additionally, clarity in text is needed to define if measures apply to a lot versus
the project area.
Comment noted. Previous direction removed 65% lot coverage requirement, but did not provide
For utility scale solar, if they would just confirm/clarify that the 500-acre limit applies to a parcel
further direction on max acreage. Max project acreage can be revised to be determined during the
(they call it a "lot" in the rule) and not the entire project, which will be comprised of many lots (none
Special Exception process if PC/BOS are amenable.
of which approach 500 acres in size), then we would be fine.

4 of 12

Comment
noted. Previous
direction
removed
65% lot coverage requirement, but did not provide
King George Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance
- Open
House
Draft
| Comments

#

Reviewer

Date
Received

Topic

Section

65

Public

7/27/23

Utility-Scale Solar

7-7-10(F)

66

Public

7/27/23

Utility-Scale Solar

7-7-10

67

Public

8/5/23

Buffers

68

Public

8/5/23

Buffers

69

Public

8/5/23

Buffers

70

Public

8/7/23

Parking Requirements

8-5-8(A)

71

Public

8/6/23

Industrial Noise

8-10-5

8-3-5
Table VIII-2
8-3-5
Table VIII-2
8-3-5
Table VIII-2

72

Public

7/27/23

Industrial Noise

8-10-5

73

Public

8/2/23

Industrial Noise

8-10-5

74

Public

8/6/23

Industrial Noise

8-10-5

75

Public

8/5/23

Industrial Noise

8-10-5

76

Public

8/5/23

Industrial Noise

8-10-5

Comment

further direction on max acreage. Max project acreage can be revised to be determined during the
Berkley
Group Response
Special Exception process if PC/BOS are
amenable.

Why is there a size cap on utility-scale solar projects? It seems arbitrary, and the Commission and
Board made it clear in previous sessions that they want all solar projects to make it to a Special
Exception application and be assessed on merits.
For solar:
1. Groundwater monitoring (Section 7-7-10(N)) - unnecessary
2. Barbed wire (Section7-7-10(O)) - why make us make it ugly? Also, it looks like the landscaping
section (Section 7-7-10(J)) has been greatly expanded: a 100-foot-wide buffer. Huge. Although half Comment noted. No revision recommended.
of that 100 feet need only be "plugs" (I suppose that is a seedling), it is still overkill. It would be good
to try to get them to focus on a subjective goal of "enhancing the view" or "reducing the visibility"
and/or leave it up to a site-specific landscaping plan that accounts for receptors.
Need bigger setbacks and buffers from residences - failure to do so will result in the beauty of our
rural county being destroyed. NOT OKAY!
Comment noted. Setbacks and buffers can be revised with consensus from PC/BOS, but no revision
Need larger setbacks and buffers from residences. King George is royal, citizens need to be
recommended.
prioritized and Sealston needs to be protected from any risk of undue noise and fire as well as
A larger buffer is needed. Nobody traveling and just entering the county want to see these big
structures.
Recommend making provisions for uses not listed in Table 8-5. Suggest that the Zoning
Comment noted. 8-5-8 (I) provides that requirements for a use not specifically listed in the chart
Administrator be authorized to determine the required number of parking spaces based on the ITE shall be the same as a use of similar characteristics of parking demand generation. No revisions
Parking Generation Manual or relevant studies or industry information.
recommended.
1) Section 8-10-5. Testing needs a third major paragraph for (C) Complaint-driven testing to include a
specified number of complaints within a specified period of time, regardless of how many and from
whom, triggers Zoning Administrator action, and giving an Applicant 48 hours to mitigate the
violation or the Certificate(s) of Occupancy will be automatically suspended and the Applicant will
cease the use until such time that the Applicant can demonstrate through sound testing that the
noise levels are in compliance. How soon after the complaint will the Community Development
office be required to respond to the complainant? What will the response look like? How soon after
the complaint will the office be required to engage the applicant/offender? What will that
engagement look like? How will it be documented?
Comment noted; additional provisions for complaint-based testing can be added with consensus
2) Table VIII-11. Maximum Industrial Use Noise should specify Daytime as 8 a.m. – 10 p.m. instead of from PC/BOS. The time frame of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. aligns with the existing County Noise Ordinance
6 a.m. – 10 p.m. and Nighttime as 10 p.m. – 8 a.m. instead of 10 p.m. – 6 a.m.
(Section 10-8).
3) Section 8-10-4, paragraph (B)(5) needs more specificity for the three sound level readings to be
taken. What is the required duration of each reading (10 sec, 1 min, 10 min, 30 min, 60 min)? The
duration should be specified in the section and should specify that each reading is taken for the
same duration. How close together in time are the readings to be taken (10 min apart, 60 min apart,
24 hours apart)? The interval should probably not be 4 or 8 or 12 hours because that approach
would cause one or more of the readings to cross from daytime to nighttime or vice versa and then
different allowable maximums would apply. The interval between multiple readings should be
specified in the section.
Would like to add a paragraph C to address complaint based testing like the annual testing.
Comment noted. Provisions for complaint-based testing can be added with consensus from PC/BOS.
Comment noted. Section 10-8-5 currently contains provisions for revocation of the Certificate of
Standards should be put in place where there can potentially be a loss to the certificate of occupancy
Occupancy. Additional provisions for complaint-based testing can be added with consensus from
if ordinances are violated in regards to noise levels.
PC/BOS.
Please add an ordinance requiring noise testing in response to complaints. If noise issues are
unresolved, certificate of occupancy suspended. Increase setbacks for I and I-1 from ag andres
zoning. Limit ancillary uses...so a solar farm can't be used to power a data center as an ancillary use.
Please do keep all these uses as SE.
Please put something that will enable testing and assurance of proper noise limits in response to
complaints. One planned time a year a data center can make itself within limits.
Require testing of data centers if neighbors complain about noise. No Power Plants. No battery
storage near homes or schools.
5 of 12

King George Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance - Open House Draft | Comments
#

Reviewer

Date
Received

Topic

Section

77

Public

8/3/23

Industrial Noise

8-10-5

78

Public

8/6/23

Industrial Noise

8-10-5

79

Public

8/5/23

Industrial Noise

8-10-5

80

Public

8/5/23

Industrial Noise

8-10-5

81

Public

8/5/23

Industrial Noise

8-10-5

82

Public

8/6/23

Industrial Noise

8-10-5

83

Public

7/27/23

Minor Subdivision

10-2-2

84

Public

7/27/23

Subdivision Roads

85

Public

8/2/23

Private Streets

86

Public

7/30/23

87

Public

7/30/23

88

Public

89

10-2-4(C)(5)

Family Subdivisions & Private
Streets
Family Subdivisions & Private
Streets

10-2-4
10-3-8(H)
10-2-4
10-3-8(H)
10-2-4
10-3-8(H)

8/7/23

Suitability of Land

10-3-1

Public

8/7/23

Lot Remnants

10-3-4

90

Public

7/27/23

Subdivision Roads

10-3-6

91

Public

8/7/23

Access

10-3-6(A)(2)

Comment

Berkley Group Response

Would like to see a requirement to test noise levels when complaints are made or at unannounced
times to ensure businesses are complying with the noise standards all the time and not just at
known pre-determined times. Would like to see the certificate of occupancy tied to whether or not
they are in compliance with the noise standards. If they don't comply with noise standards, they
Comment noted; additional provisions for complaint-based testing can be added with consensus
should lose their certificate of occupancy.
If there are noise complaints from citizens on these industrial uses, they need to be fixed within 48 from PC/BOS.
hours or the use needs to lose permission to operate. Fines on big corporations won't work and will
not be enough.
If there are noise complaints from citizens on these industrial uses, they needed to be fixed within
48 hours or else they need to lose permission to operate. Fines on big corporations won't work.
Noise complaints need to be taken care of within a reasonable time. Suggested 48 hours or the use
needs to lose permission to operate.
What if the noise level is too loud? Is there something in the ordinance that will hold them to the
fire? A time limit to correct this? A fine? Shut down until corrected?
I would like it if there were no data centers going in at all in my neighborhood but I do like the
special exception and not by right. I would have liked noise level restrictions to be harder. I would
like there to be immediate responses and consequences to any complaints from residents when
regarding noise levels.
Comment: Section 10-2-2 does not exclude parcels in excess of 40 acres from the Minor Subdivision
as was provided in Section 10-2-1 for major Subdivisions (and as provided in the current Subdivision
Comment noted. Recommend adding subsection (1): Parcels in excess of 40 acres will not count
Ordinance)
towards a Minor Subdivision.
Does a family subdivision trigger driveway/road improvements on existing nonconforming
driveways? (Such as driveways that already have more than 2 shared users or that don't meet width
requirements.) If so, would not be interested in pursuing a family subdivision because the
requirements would be too much for a typical homeowner.
Private road stays in tact when adding a family member to it.

10-3-8 (H)(1) exempts Family Subdivisions from those requirements. No revision recommended.

Existing private roads can stay (grandfathered in) when adding a house to a family property that has
other properties attached to the same road.
But more wording on how existing private road for a family subdivision can remain once adding a
home for a family member and no other road needs to be put in.
This provision does not appear to have any defined standards and is very subjective. A plat denial
Comment noted. Recommend County Attorney review and provide desired edits.
under these standards would likely be subject to appeal.
This appears to preclude the creation of parcels for common open space that are below the standard Comment noted. Clarification to exempt dedicated open space, stormwater management,
lot size. Parcels for street entrance features, common mailbox receptacles, stormwater
recreational amenities, etc. can be added to 10-3-4 and/or district standard tables with consensus
management and recreational amenities often are smaller than the minimum lot size for the zoning from PC/BOS.
Comment: It is not clear whether a private driveway serving one or two lots is considered a “private
street” or a “private road”. Needs clarification and definition. If all lots front on a public road, can
each lot have their own driveway? If it is intended that adjacent lots share driveway entrances, then
a 5 lot subdivision (where each lot has road frontage) would require 3 driveway access points.
Limiting the maximum number of access points to 2 as specified in Table X-2 would be unnecessarily Comment noted. Recommend clarifying text that 3 or more is considered a private road and less
restrictive and could result in additional access easements across adjacent lots.
than 3 is considered a driveway. This will also match the trigger for naming roads and installing VDOT
entrances. Additionally, driveway may be defined and include shared driveway for additional clarity.
Recommendation: Clarify definitions of driveway vs private street and encourage the use of shared
driveway entrances but do not eliminate potential lots by restricting the number of entrances. Give
the Subdivision Agent authority to exercise judgement in finding common sense solutions that
achieve the objective on minimizing entrances.
Comment noted. This text establishes easements and rights-of-way would be established as needed
Easements and/or right-of-way should be specified unless this is intended to speak to private streets.
during future development. No revisions recommended.

6 of 12

King George Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance - Open House Draft | Comments
#

Reviewer

Date
Received

Topic

Section

92

Public

8/7/23

Access

10-3-6(B)
Table X-1

93

Public

8/7/23

Streets

10-3-8(A)(1)(i)

94

Public

7/27/23

Subdivision Roads

10-3-8(H)

95

Public

8/7/23

Streets

10-3-8(D)(3)

96

Public

8/7/23

Streets

10-3-8(G)(2)

97

Public

8/7/23

Private Streets

10-3-8(H)(2)(i)

98

Public

8/7/23

Private Streets

10-3-8(H)(2)(iii)
10-3-8(H)(2)(iv)
10-3-8(H)(2)(v)
10-3-8(H)(2)(vii)

99

Public

8/7/23

Utilities

10-3-10(E)

Comment

Berkley Group Response

What is the rational nexus for subdivisions to be reviewed by the Planning Commission requiring
Comment noted. Table X-1 identifies the minimum number of access points and allows the Planning
more access points than subdivisions that are administratively reviewed? Recommend that the
Commission to increase. In most cases the minimum is one and therefore the Planning Commission
requirements be the same with a statement that the Planning Commission may determine that the could not reduce to zero access points. The table does require 2 and 3 access points for connections
number of access points for a specific subdivision may be more or less than shown in the table based to other parcels and subdivisions when creating a subdivision of 51 or more lots. It is not
on topographic, environmental, and use conflict considerations.
recommended to reduce these minimum accesses.
Comment noted. Recommend revising to clarify Chapter 13.5, Article III of the King George County
Please provide the code citation. The referenced code was not readily found in Municode.
Code.
If a private street already has 8 developed lots using a private street, do they have to upgrade the
Comment noted. Recommend clarifying text so that existing number of approved lots (as of the
private street when the next lot is developed?
effective date of the ordinance) are okay, but additional divisions would trigger upgrade to the
Is there a rationale as to why they are prohibited? They can customarily be found in townhouse
developments and are beneficial from a Chesapeake Bay Act aspect in that they require less
Comment noted. This text is retained from the existing ordinance. No revision recommended.
impervious area than traditional cul-de-sac bulbs.
This may constitute an unlawful taking of private property. Recommend changing shall to may. There
may be instances where additional right-of-way is necessary to meet sight distance and other safety Comment noted. Recommend County Attorney review and provide desired edits.
measures for VDOT to approve the subdivision plat.
Please clarify what the width of the street means. Is it pavement width or width of the pavement
Comment noted. Recommend editing text to read: …constructed private street pavement width be
and any gutter pans or ditches.
less than 25 ft., …
It may be simpler to reference that all private roads shall be constructed to AASHTO standards and
that a professional engineer shall certify that the private roads have been constructed to the plans
and applicable AASHTO standards.

Comment noted. The standards from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials may differ from these standards. No revision recommended.

These provisions should be relocated to Chapter 6.5 of the County Code.

Comment noted. The topic of fire protection for subdivisions was requested for inclusion in this
article of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. No revision recommended.

Comment: If a shared driveway could be considered a “private street”, then this section could be
interpreted as requiring establishment of a HOA.
100

Public

7/27/23

HOAs

10-3-14

101

Public

8/7/23

HOAs

10-3-14(B)
10-3-14(C)

102

Public

8/7/23

Separate Ownership

10-5-3

103

Public

8/7/23

Review of the Preliminary
Plat

10-6-5(C)(2)

104

Public

8/7/23

105

Public

8/7/23

106

Public

8/7/23

107

Public

8/7/23

108

Public

8/7/23

109

Public

8/7/23

Minor/Single Lot/Family
Subdivision Final Plat
Requirements
Major Subdivision Final Plat
Requirements
Major Subdivision Final Plat
Requirements
Major Subdivision Final Plat
Requirements
Major Subdivision Final Plat
Requirements
Major Subdivision Final Plat
Requirements

10-7-2(B)
10-7-3(B)(2)(iv)
10-7-3(B)(2)(v)
10-7-3(B)(3)(iii)
10-7-3(B)(4)
10-7-3(B)(5)(viii)
10-7-3(B)(6)(v)

Comment noted. Driveway can be further defined and/or clarification added to 10-3-14(A).
Recommendation: Clarify that shared driveway entrances or easements with a road maintenance
agreement do not create a requirement for a HOA
Based on the statement in subsection C above, these provisions are unenforceable and therefore
should be removed.
This section should be deleted. The County Subdivision Agent should not be holding deeds of
conveyance between private property owners. This is mixing private and public business and
potentially creates a liability for the County.
The referenced 3 years for the subdivision agent to revoke a preliminary plat with 90 days’ notice is
not congruent with the fact that by State Code the preliminary plat is valid for 5 years if a final plat
application is submitted. This code provision should simply state that the validity of the preliminary
plat expires if a subdivision plat is not recorded for all or a portion of the subdivision within 5 years
of approval of the preliminary plat.

Comment noted. This text ensures the creation of a HOA and incorporates state code 15.2-2256. No
revision recommended.
Comment noted. This text only addresses conveyance when land is being subdivided. No revision
recommended.

Comment noted. This text follows state code 15.2-2260(F). No revision recommended.

Recommend that all designated open space of common space properties be designated by a letter.
This can avoid confusion as to what is a buildable lot.
These items are normally found on a plan of development/site plan rather than a final subdivision
plat.
These items are normally found on a plan of development/site plan rather than a final subdivision
plat.
These items are normally found on a plan of development/site plan rather than a final subdivision
plat.
These items are normally found on a plan of development/site plan rather than a final subdivision
plat.
All secondary roads are dedicated to public use to the local government for which they are in (King
George County). Only rights-of-way associated with primary roads are dedicated to the
Commonwealth of Virginia.

Comment noted. Recommend King George County staff review and provide desired edits.

7 of 12

King George Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance - Open House Draft | Comments
#

Reviewer

Date
Received

Topic

Section

110

Public

8/7/23

Submission of Final Plats

10-7-4(B)

111

Public

8/7/23

Review of Final Plats

10-7-5(A)(5)

112

Public

8/7/23

Construction Plans

10-8-1

113

Public

8/7/23

Construction Plans

10-8-2(B)

114

Public

8/7/23

Construction Plans

10-8-3(B)

115

Public

8/7/23

Construction Plans

10-8-3(C)

116

Public

8/5/23

Industrial Use Permissions
and Standards

Various

117

Public

8/5/23

Industrial Use Permissions
and Standards

Various

118

Public

8/5/23

Industrial Use Permissions
and Standards

Various

119

Public

8/6/23

Industrial Use Permissions
and Standards

-

-

-

120

Public

8/5/23

Industrial Use Permissions
and Standards

121

Public

8/5/23

Industrial Use Permissions
and Standards

122

Public

8/2/23

123

Public

8/5/23

Industrial Use Permissions
and Standards
Industrial Use Permissions
and Standards

Comment

Berkley Group Response

Please consider changing this to specify the number of copies and digital file media as determined by
Comment noted. Recommend revising text to: Copies will be submitted in digital and physical
the Agent. This will allow for changes in technology and legal requirements that will likely eliminate
format as required by the Agent.
the need for paper copies in the future.
Comment noted. Recommend revising text to clarify when plats are approved the plat will be signed
It is not clear if this is referring to the Agent’s approval or submission back to the applicant of review
and dated with the approval date and when disapproved a letter will be sent noting the reason for
comments to be addressed. Please clarify.
disapproval and the date of the action.
Construction plans should be submitted and approved prior to recordation of the final plat. Cost
Comment noted. This text is drafted as requested by County staff. No revision recommended.
estimates to bond public facilities are predicated on an approved construction plan.
Construction plans should comply with the approved preliminary plan if applicable. They should be
Comment noted. Recommend King George County staff review and provide desired edits.
approved prior to the record plat for the reason stated above.
Construction plans per Virginia Code Sec. 15.2-2259 are classified as site plans. The review time is a
maximum of 60 days for the first submission and 45 days for each subsequent submission.
Comment noted. Recommend County Attorney review and provide desired edits.
Consideration should be made for the future of electronic plans.
Virginia Code Sec. 15.2-2261 specifies that site plans are valid for a period of 5 years.
As a King George County resident, directly effected by this rezoning, No. I am not satisfied and do
not want this here. I want more space between the road and site, i.e.; buffers and setbacks to be a
greater distance. I am asking for 100 yards from residences and roads, not 100 feet. I want the
Comment noted. Following direction from the PC/BOS at the April and May 2023 work sessions, data
natural tree line to exist, leaving natural, mature trees hiding these structures. I want the buildings, centers, battery energy storage facilities, electricity generation facilities, and utility-scale solar are
warehouses, etc. to all blend in with the natural environment and to be painted green, to blend in
permitted by Special Exception only. Additional provisions for complaint-based testing can be added
with the trees. I am also asking that you keep all of these uses as by special exception, NOT By-Right. with consensus from PC/BOS.
ALSO, if there are noise complaints from citizens on these industrial uses, they needed to be fixed
within 48 hours or the use needs to lose permission to operate. Fines on these big corporations
Comment noted. Following direction from the PC/BOS at the April and May 202 3 work sessions,
data centers, battery energy storage facilities, electricity generation facilities, and utility-scale solar
Please keep all uses in a by special exception not by- right. Need bigger buffers for residents. If
are permitted by Special Exception only. The transitional buffer requirements for data centers were
they’re complaints about noise needs to be fixed within 48 hrs if not need to lose right to operate.
increased following the April 2023 work session. Additional provisions for complaint-based testing
can be added with consensus from PC/BOS.
Please please please, understand that residents all over the county do it want this change. We do
not want to rezone. We do not want massive structures taking up our farmland views. We do not
want this. If this is something that’s going to happen, regardless of our say, please hear our
Comment noted. Additional provisions for complaint-based testing can be added with consensus
concerns. Know that we are asking for King George to set up design limitations (meaning structures
from PC/BOS. The transitional buffer requirements for data centers were increased following the
have to blend with the natural environment in color, that complaints about noise violations will be
April 2023 work session.
fixed within 48 hours, and that the buildings and space will be so far off the road, that it won’t effect
residents near by. I am specifically asking for at least a 100 yard buffer and setback between this new
development and private citizen residences and roads.
I have major concerns for my farm animals as my property backs up to the power plant property.

Comment noted. No revision recommended.

I was born and raised in the area being affected, it’s bad enough trying to enjoy setting outside and
smelling the mountain of landfill, now the county is going to add noise and a loss of the beauty of
Comment noted. No revision recommended.
living in a farm area to living in a industrial area. Everyone is voting for money and not the quality of
life for the people living in this area.
The county needs to consider the negative impact of preserving farms, natural water and other
nature, residential properties. CDC indicates dangers of health and lifestyle for the decibel levels
Comment noted. No revision recommended.
projected.

-

Greater protections needed for the citizens living in proximity to these facilities.

Comment noted. No revision recommended.

-

Bigger distances between industrial and homes.

Comment noted. No revision recommended.

8 of 12

King George Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance - Open House Draft | Comments
#

Reviewer

Date
Received

Topic

124

Public

8/6/23

Industrial Use Permissions
and Standards

125

Public

8/7/23

Violation and Enforcement

126
127

Public
Public

8/5/23
8/5/23

General
General

128

Public

8/5/23

General

129

Public

8/7/23

General

130

Public

8/5/23

General

131

BOS

8/11/23

Ordinance Conflicts and
Interpretations

132

PC

8/14/23

Nonconformities

133

BOS

8/11/23

Vested Rights

134

BOS

8/11/23

Appointment, Powers, and
Duties

135

BOS

8/11/23

Performance Bond

136

BOS

8/11/23

Zoning Determinations

137

BOS

8/11/23

Posting Notice on Property

138

BOS

8/11/23

Height Exemptions for
Parapet Walls

Section

Comment

Berkley Group Response

There need to be larger setbacks and buffers from residences. Also, larger setbacks and buffers from
main and secondary roads (e.g., Fletchers Chapel); 100 feet is not enough. We need to work on
keeping the rural character of the county and prioritizing our citizens. There is much historic,
prehistoric, and natural view shed that will be disturbed and destroyed by these projects. Not to
mention the environmental impacts of projects such as those that have been brought forth. It is
important to listen to your citizens and not to turn our agricultural land and the green landscape into
a bustling industrial center when there is potential for other uses that can also garner revenue for
the county. This end of the county should not be known and seen only as an industrial hub, we
Comment noted. No revision recommended.
should not have to bear the brunt of these company's ideas and plans. Is it necessary to allow them
to turn one of the main entrances into the county into an industrial hub? Please, take your time in
considering and do not be afraid to want more time; it is more than okay to have as many questions
and want as much information as possible before agreeing. Do not be yes men/women just because
it might make everyone happier and get it all over with quicker. It is in everyone's best interest to
see this through in the right way. If we need a year to deliberate, let's take a year; let's not jump the
gun on such a big project that will have a major impact on the county.
Companies should be responsible to the people living in the area. If there are complaints they should
be addressed promptly within 48 hours, or the businesses should be required to shut down till issues
are resolved. Fining big businesses is not an option, taking away their ability to work and make
Comment noted. No revision recommended.
money would have a greater impact on their response time. The rural character of our county must
also be taken into consideration. People live here to stay away from industrialized areas and to enjoy
the beauty that comes with living in the country.
Keep KG rural as much as possible.
Comment noted. No revision recommended.
Keep this area farm land, the reason people living here stay.
Comment noted. No revision recommended.
Preserve as much of our lands as possible. This county needs to start making cuts in the budget and
Comment noted. No revision recommended.
not be living above our means.
We required larger setbacks and buffers between residential and industrial areas keeping industry
Comment noted. No revision recommended.
away from people's homes.
It’s destroying the area with heavy traffic and stressing the county to build more schools and
Comment noted. No revision recommended.
additional fire and rescue which goes against all the positive money coming in.
Board of Supervisors & Planning Commission Comments
1-2-1(A)(6)
Comment noted. This provision follows state code and streamlines the appeal process. The County
Add appeal to BZA and BOS. Wants BOS to hear zoning appeals in addition to or instead of BZA, prior
1-2-1(A)(7)
Attorney would need to determine if the state code would permit BOS review in addition to BZA. No
to further appeals to Circuit Court.
Article III, Division 9
revision recommended.
1-4-3
The term "immediately prior" seems ambiguous.
Comment noted; "immediately prior" will mean any date prior to the date of ordinance adoption.
Concerned that provisions regarding vested rights determinations by the Zoning Administrator could
1-4-6(A)
Comment noted. This text aligns with state code. No revision recommended.
be in conflict with family inheritance rights.
Don't think the Zoning Administrator should be able to hold any other office in the County,
particularly elected office or County Administration. Should only be allowed to hold multiple titles
Comment noted. The Board may decide as a matter of policy and does not have to appoint to other
2-1-1(C)
within Community Development Department (e.g. one person is Zoning Administrator and Planning offices. No revision recommended.
Director concurrently). Could create too much conflict and it is not clear in the proposed language.
Comment noted. The time limit is typical for most localities. For clarity the text can be reworded to "
3-6-7(C)(4)
The 30 day provision is unreasonable/confusing and should be changed or clarified.
If the performance bond contains an expiration date and all improvements have not been
completed, then 30 days prior to expiration provisions shall be made for extension of the bond."
Comment noted. 3-8-3 can be revised to add a new item (A) to read "Persons requesting a
3-8-1
Wants additional language added to 3-8-2 to clarify procedures for submitting written requests for
determination by the Zoning Administrator must do so in writing on forms provided by King George
3-8-2
Zoning Determinations.
County. The Administrator must sign and date the form upon receipt."
Having a sign every 200 feet is too much. There are too many signs in the County and can be
Comment noted. Distance/number of signs can be discussed and amended as directed by the
3-10-3(A)(6)
unsightly. Double the requirement to every 400 feet in provision (6).
PC/BOS. No revision recommended.
Comment noted. This is a common exemption. Parapet walls are often used to screen elements that
4-2-3(C)(12)
Parapet walls should not be considered for height exemptions. Remove (12) and (14) from the
are unsightly and typically are low enough to be reached with fire equipment. No revision
4-2-3(C)(14)
exemptions section.
recommended.

9 of 12

King George Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance - Open House Draft | Comments
#

Reviewer

Date
Received

Topic

Section

139

BOS

8/11/23

Corner Lot Setbacks

4-2-4(B)(2)

140

BOS

8/11/23

4-5-2
Table IV-4

141

BOS

8/11/23

R-3 Standards, Townhouse
Density
RC District,
Non-Residential Building
Height

142

PC

8/14/23

Home Occupations

Table VI-1

143

BOS

8/11/23

Table VI-1

144

BOS

8/11/23

145

BOS

8/11/23

146

BOS

8/11/23

Use Matrix, Kennels
Use Matrix Manufactured/Modular
Home Sales
Use Matrix Nursing Home
Use Matrix Parking Lot, Commercial

4-8-3
Table IV-7

Comment noted. This can be changed if desired by the PC/BOS, but no revision recommended.

Table VI-1

Nursing Homes should not be by right in R-3. Change to Special Exception.

Comment noted. This can be changed if desired by the PC/BOS, but no revision recommended.

Table VI-1

Parking Lot, Commercial should be added as by right in I and I-1.

Comment noted. This can be added if desired by the PC/BOS, but no revision is recommended.

8/14/23

Livestock and Beekeeping

7-2-1
7-2-3(B)

148

BOS

8/11/23

Dwelling, Accessory

7-3-2(D)(2)

149

BOS

8/11/23

Dwelling, Townhouse

7-3-6(A)

Home Occupations

7-3-8
7-3-9
7-3-10

8/14/23

Needs more clarification - it is hard to interpret two fronts, one side, and one rear for setback
Comment noted. This text is streamlined here but explained further in (C) (2).No revision
purposes.
recommended.
Townhouse density should be no more than 5 townhouses per acre. Cannot fit 8 townhomes with
Comment noted. Density can be discussed and amended as directed by the PC/BOS. No revision
parking on 1 acre.
recommended.
45' is too tall for non-residential buildings unless a certain height is granted by a Special Exception.
Comment noted. Drafted considering recreational buildings and other commercial type uses. Height
No recommendation on alternative height, but 45' is too tall. Should be determined on a case by
can be reduced to 35' to match other districts if desired by the PC/BOS. No revision recommended.
case basis.
In the section pertaining to Home Occupation, it seems inconsistent to have Class B as SE in A-1 & A- Comment noted. Recommend revising Table VI-1 to make Home Occupations, Class B permitted by
2 when Class C is by-right. I would think in some zoning districts, Class B would be by-right.
right in A-1 and A-2. SE in other districts for Class B would remain.
Kennels, Commercial should not be by right in A-1, A-2, and A-3. Change to Special Exception.
Comment noted. This can be changed if desired by the PC/BOS, but no revision recommended.
Manufactured/Modular Home Sales should not be in by right in C-2, I, and I-1. Change to Special
Exception.

PC

PC

Berkley Group Response

Table VI-1

147

150

Comment

151

PC

8/14/23

Home Occupations

7-3-10(G)

152

BOS

8/11/23

Campground

7-4-1(A)

153

BOS

8/14/23

Food Trucks

7-5-14

154

PC

8/11/23

Battery Energy Storage
Facilities

7-6-1(I)(1)

155

PC

8/11/23

Battery Energy Storage
Facilities

7-6-1-(K)(4)

156

PC

8/11/23

Utility-Scale Solar

7-7-10(F)

157

PC

8/11/23

Utility-Scale Solar

7-7-10(O)(6)

158

BOS

8/11/23

Lighting

8-2-3(A)

The Agriculture Use standards are confusing. 7-2-1(A) states 5 acre minimum lot size for the keeping • 7-2-1(B) refers to agriculturally zoned lots that are part of Major Subdivisions only - to keep
of livestock, but 7-2-1(B) states 10 acre minimum in major subdivisions. It is confusing as applied to livestock in a Major Subdivision zoned A-1, A-2, or A-3, the lot size must be at least 10 acres. All
Beekeeping. The 5 or 10 acre requirement does not align with the beekeeping lot sizes in 7-2-3(B)
other lots in A-1, A-2, or A-3 would be 5 acres.
and bees are not one of the excluded livestock listed in 7-2-1. What is the rationale of
• Beekeeping provisions under 7-2-3(B) refers to beekeeping in residential districts, where lot sizes
allowing only 4 hives?
are smaller and neighbors may be nearby.
Comment noted. The proposed text allows one accessory dwelling unit per lot; additional accessory
One accessory dwelling per lot should be increased. What if there is a shed as well?
structures (such as sheds) may be possible if requirements are met.
Comment noted. Units can be discussed and amended as directed by the PC/BOS. No revision
Maximum adjoined units should be decreased from 8 to 5.
recommended.
Do these home occupation ordinances apply to home daycares? It would be pretty hard to conform Day cares are a separate use from home occupations. They are regulated by state code and provided
to these standards.
in the ordinance as Day Care, Family Home.
Some clarification would be helpful. Those numbers for employees, customers, and vehicles are per
day or at one point in time? Also for the definition of each Class of Home Occupation, is the number
of employees for a home business the number on site at a particular time, or the number allowed
each day?
A minimum lot size of 10 acres is too small for campgrounds. Increase to 40 acres. Should also be
permitted by Special Exception only and should not be permitted in A-1 or A-2 at all.
Against food trucks except for special events and specific approved places Vineyards and breweries
need food trucks to comply with ABC regulations.

Comment noted. Clarification can be added to specify employees per day and customers and
vehicles at any one time.

Comment noted. Minimum size can be discussed and amended as directed by the PC/BOS. No
revision recommended.
Comment noted. This is a use that can be regulated through zoning. County Attorney should be
consulted for the ability to restrict events only. No revisions recommended.
Comment noted. Recommended clarification: All individual batteries shall be connected to a 24/7
Revise this clause as "Each battery facility battery storage and use location shall have 24/7
automated fire detection and extinguishing system, consistent with NFPA 855, Standard for the
automated fire detection and extinguishing technology, consistent with NFPA 855, Standard for the
Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems, to detect the precise location of a malfunctioning
Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems."
battery and suppress fire events.
Revise this clause as "Failure to maintain the security fencing may result in revocation of the Zoning Comment noted. Revise Section 7-6-1(K)(4) to state: Failure to maintain the security fencing shall
Permit and the facility’s decommissioning, if deficiencies are not corrected within 30 days after
result in the revocation of the Zoning Permit following notice of violation and enforcement as
notification by the County." (This text change also applies to 7-7-10(O)(6).)
provided in Article II, Division 4 of this Ordinance.
Recommend: Delete sentence 7-7-10(F), allowing the County flexibility to determine maximum
Comment noted. Previous direction removed 65% lot coverage requirement, but did not provide
facility size based on site specific considerations during the Special Exception review process. The
further direction on max acreage. Max project acreage can be revised to be determined during the
rationale is that a single entity could wish to link multiple small parcels connected by transmission
Special Exception process if PC/BOS are amenable.
lines that in aggregate could exceed 500 acres, i.e., rooftop solar, or connected smaller solar farm
Revise this clause as "Failure to maintain the security fencing may result in revocation of the Zoning Comment noted. Revise Section 7-7-10(O)(6) to state: Failure to maintain the security fencing shall
Permit and the facility’s decommissioning, if deficiencies are not corrected within 30 days after
result in the revocation of the Zoning Permit following notice of violation and enforcement as
notification by the County."
provided in Article II, Division 4 of this Ordinance.
Needs more clarification regarding the Use Matrix.
Comment noted. No revision recommended.
10 of 12

King George Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance - Open House Draft | Comments
#

Reviewer

Date
Received

Topic

Section

159

BOS

8/11/23

Lighting

8-2-3(E)

160

BOS

8/11/23

Tree and Plant Standards

8-3-4(A)(4)(i)

161

BOS

8/11/23

Tree and Plant Standards

8-3-4(A)(6)

162

BOS

8/11/23

Tree and Plant Standards

8-3-4(A)(8)

163

BOS

8/11/23

Transitional Buffers

8-3-5
Table VIII-2

164

BOS

8/14/23

Parking Design Standards

8-5-7

165

BOS

8/11/23

Signs

8-6-2(B)(2)

166

BOS

8/14/23

Signs

8-6-3

167

BOS

8/14/23

Signs

8-6-3

168

BOS

8/14/23

Signs

8-6-3

169

BOS

8/11/23

Portable Sign Exemption

8-6-4(A)(3)(i)

170

BOS

8/11/23

Sign Setbacks

8-6-5(C)

171

BOS

8/11/23

Temporary Signs

8-6-6(D)

172

BOS

8/11/23

Sign Maintenance, Repair,
and Removal

8-6-9

173

BOS

8/11/23

Family Subdivisions

10-2-4(C)(3)(i)

174

BOS

8/11/23

Family Subdivisions,
Subdivision Agent

10-2-4(C)(3)(ii)

175

BOS

8/11/23

Family Subdivision, KGSA

10-2-4(C)(6)

176

BOS

8/11/23

Suitability of Land

10-3-1

177

BOS

8/11/23

Utilities

10-3-10(A)

178

BOS

8/11/23

Stem Lots

10-3-3(C)

179

BOS

8/11/23

Lot Remnants

10-3-4

180

BOS

8/11/23

Subdivision Bond

10-4-2(A)

181

BOS

8/11/23

Subdivision Bond Release

10-4-4(A)

8/14/23

Abandoned
vessel/dock/debris
Ordinance

TBD

182

BOS

Comment

Berkley Group Response

Change "preferred" to "required" type of exterior site lighting.
Comment noted. Revise as directed.
30 days is not enough notification to remove dead plants. Do not want to put people in the position Comment noted. 8-3-2 addresses when the provisions apply. Timeframe to replace after notification
of being in violation. If this provision applies to commercial/industrial landscaping only, it is not clear. can be edited as directed by the PC/BOS. No revision recommended.
Why do plants need to be nursery grown and why are they required to conform to the American
This provision is carried over from the existing ordinance. The American Standard for Nursery Stock
Standard for Nursery Stock?
is an Approved American National Standard.
Comment noted. This provision is carried over from the existing ordinance. It also helps ensure
Why isn't bare root planting permitted?
plantings survive. No revision recommended.
Comment noted. Transitional buffers help with the change from one type of use to another. This
Why are transitional buffers not applicable for commercial and industrial districts? Add buffers for all references when these districts are adjacent to one another and so uses are similar. There are other
districts listed in the table.
landscaping requirements for commercial and industrial uses. These are minimal due to concern
with burdening business owners. No revision recommended.
In this section, there needs to be exceptions for areas in the RPA or places that want to preserve
Comment noted. Grass and gravel are permitted in certain circumstances. This may be expanded
their "county/rustic" appeal. Not all parking lots need to be paved and lined.
with PC/BOS direction. No revision recommended.
Comment noted. Political signs can not be specifically regulated due to case law. 8-6-4 addresses
Application and regulations should not be applicable to political signs.
signs that are exempt form permitting. No revision recommended.
Would like to see a change in "on property signs" as well. Businesses have to pay for signs out on the Comment noted. All sign regulations are to address beautification (clutter, size, etc.) and safety
road as well as any sign that is hung on their brick and mortar building as well. Why is that?
(distraction of drivers). No revision recommended.
Does the ordinance state "no off site placement" of signs?
Section 8-6-6(A) pertains to Off-Site Sign standards.
Where does it say that "popsicle signs" are illegal? That needs to be plain as day because it is a major Comment noted. Popsicle signs would be treated the same as other small or temporary signs. The
issue. What about enforcement? Who is going to do it and where does it say that?
restrictions of the ordinance must be enforced by the Administrator or another agreed upon agent.
Area for exemption should be increased to 32 SF (4'x8'). Political signs should be specifically
exempted from 6 SF and capped at a larger size.
Political signs should be exempt from sign setbacks.
Comment noted. No revision recommended. Political signs are not allowed be regulated differently
Political signs should be exempt from temporary sign regulations. Are elections an event? Needs to
than other temporary signs. Temporary signs may be amended as desired by the PC/BOS. No
be clarified. Also, temporary signs should be allowed to be illuminated (particularly political signs
revision recommended.
should be allowed to be illuminated).
Political signs should be exempt from these regulations, particularly removal at the cost to the
homeowner.
Death and divorce should not be factors that allow the Subdivision Agent to waive any remaining
Comment noted. No revision recommended.
required holding period.
This provision mentions "…upon application to the Agent…" Should clarify "Subdivision Agent."

See Section 2-1-1(F) and definition of Subdivision Agent (Agent) in Article XI.

If someone doesn't have water and sewer, why would they have to be approved by the KGSA for a
family subdivision? Do not want the Service Authority to require people on well/septic to connect to Comment noted. This text allows agreement between state code and other KG County Code. No
water/sewer if new lines are installed nearby. (Comment applies to all subdivisions, not just family revision recommended.
subdivisions.)
Agent should not determine suitability. Just because land may be deemed unsuitable, it can be made
Comment noted. No revision recommended.
suitable. As long as a proposal is in compliance, shouldn’t need to worry about suitability of the land.
Do not want the Service Authority to require people on well/septic to connect to water/sewer if new
Comment noted. This would be determined through the County Code. No revision recommended.
lines are installed nearby.
Comment noted. Existing text that was carried over. Provision can be removed as desired by PC/BOS.
Stem lots should not be allowed.
No revision recommended.
Comment noted. BG does not recommend allowing the creation of nonconforming parcels. Text can
Remnants smaller than minimum lot size should be allowed to exist as their own nonconforming
be amended to allow dedication of open space etc. as requested by public comment. Text to be
parcel.
revised as desired by PC/BOS.
Comment noted. This text means that the construction has not occurred yet. No revision
The language "in lieu of construction" should be struck from (A).
recommended.
Comment noted. The Agent's decision to release is specially provided. Text can be amended as
Add approval by the Board of Supervisors as a condition of releasing the bond.
desired by the PC/BOS. No revision recommended.
Discussed implementing this type of ordinance with Ms. Hall. The State has a program that they
Comment noted. This would be separate from the Zoning Ordinance. BG will follow the direction of
reimburse or pay up front for the removal of abandoned/derelict vessels, docks, or other
the PC/BOS and staff if assistance in drafting is desired.
obstructions from waterways. Need an ordinance in place to qualify.
11 of 12

King George Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance - Open House Draft | Comments
#

Reviewer

Date
Received

Topic

Section

Comment

Berkley Group Response
Staff Comments

183

Planning

8/11/23

Density - Acre vs. Gross Acre

4-5-2
Table IV-4

184

Planning

8/11/23

Traffic Impact Analysis for
Site Plans

5-4-5(D)

8/14/23

Agritourism

7-2-4

8/11/23

Short-Term Rentals

7-3-12(A)(4)

186

County
Attorney
Planning

187

Planning

8/11/23

Dwelling, Accessory

7-3-2(a)(1)

188

Planning

8/11/23

Dwelling, Multi-Family

7-3-5(A)

189

County
Attorney

8/14/23

EV Charging Stations

7-5-4

190

Planning

8/11/23

Utility-Scale Solar

7-7-10(F)

191

Planning

8/11/23

Family Subdivisions Driveways

10-2-4(5)

192

Planning

8/11/23

Preliminary Plat Review for
Major Subdivisions; Access
Points

10-3-6(B)
Table X-1

193

Planning

8/11/23

Access Requirements

10-3-6(C)
10-3-8(H)(2)

194

Planning

8/11/23

CBPA Plat Note

10-7-2(B)(21)(iii)(a)

8/11/23

Onsite Sewage Disposal &
Alternative Discharge
Systems - Administrative
Review

TBD

185

195

Planning

For density should we use “gross acre.” This term is defined but not used. I like gross acre because it
excludes wetlands etc. It is also what our current ordinance states. Should this also be applied to the Revise as directed.
density requirements of MU and PU?
Can we make the TIA required at the discretion of VDOT or the Administrator? It is onerous to
require a TIA even if all site and street improvements/infrastructure are already in place or if a TIA
Revise as directed.
would have no effect.
Replace entire section with supplied language.

Revise as directed.

Please lower from 92 days to 30 days.
Revise as directed.
Does the SE option only apply to the “Standards (General, Development, Design)”? What if I wanted
a detached ADU in a res. district? That restriction is located under general limitations. Can we
Previous direction from the PC/BOS restricted detached ADUs in residential districts. Can revise with
change that language to “a Special Exception will be required if the provided provisions in this
PC/BOS consensus.
section cannot be met?”
Is this necessary? Section 4-2-1(D) already states that parcels can only have 1 principal structure in
the res. Districts, so a multifamily development in R-3 with more than one building would have to
Revise 4-2-1 to clarify that R-3 can have additional principal structures at the discretion of the Zoning
subdivide and the structures would have to meet setbacks on their own parcel. If the intent is to
Administrator if the requirements of 4-5-2 and 7-3-5 are met.
allow more than one building, 4-2-1 should be revised or does 7-3-5(A) only apply to buildings in the
Planned Development District? If so please clarify.
Add new subsection (D) to 7-5-4 using supplied language.

Revise as directed.

Consider removing the 500-acre maximum for solar farms. I have been hearing from many
Comment noted; revise with consensus from PC/BOS.
stakeholders about this issue.
A 20 foot wide driveway is required for a family subdivision but only a 20' wide easement is required.
Recommend retaining 20' easement and reducing driveway minimum width to 10' within the
This would account for drainage ditches/maintenance. I would recommend removing the driveway
easement
width requirement.
Table X-1 states that additional access points may be required by the commission for 51+ lots are
determined during preliminary plat. Preliminary plats can be avoided by phasing a major subdivision
Comment noted; 10-1-6 also addresses circumvention; revise with additional clarification from
into multiple final plats. This is something we have ran into recently and was advised by our legal
County Attorney.
team that the State code only allows us to require preliminary plats for “plats” containing more than
50 lots, not subdivisions.
Family subdivision should be removed from the title as they have their own requirements and their
Revise as directed.
streets are not subject to 10-3-8. 10-3-8(h)(2) should explicitly exempt family subdivision as well.
Please add the note that DEQ has required us to use for Ches. Bay compliance to all plat
requirements:
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area designated Resource Protection Areas (RPA) may not be disturbed
Revise as directed.
without review and approval per Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay District, King George
County Zoning Ordinance.
a. Undisturbed and vegetated 100-foot wide RPA buffer areas are to be retained.
b. Permitted development in RPAs is limited to water dependent facilities or redevelopment.
Can we add provisions for the administrative review of direct discharge septic systems for singlefamily homes with failing or failed septic systems? Stafford has a provision where for failing or failed
septic systems, the administrator can approve an alternative discharging sewage treatment system if
it can be certified by the VDH that no other suitable means of on-site sewage disposal exists. Our
Comment noted. Revise as directed from staff and County Attorney.
current ordinance would require a SEP which can be onerous and time consuming for a homeowner.
This is a problem I am seeing more and more. However, I understand that some board and PC
members may have environmental concerns.

12 of 12