On the agenda: Rockbridge County meeting — Data Center (Nov 10)

County of Rockbridge
Office of Community Development

PLANNING &
ZONING
540-464-9662

150 South Main Street
Lexington, Virginia 24450
Office: (540) 464-9662
www.rockbridgecountyva.gov

GEOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
540-464-9656

AGENDA
ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING ROOM
November 10, 2026
7:00 P.M.
********************************************************
In addition to citizens attending the meeting in person, citizens have several options to view or participate in the
Zoom Meeting Webinar as described below:
(1)

Join the Rockbridge County Planning Commission Zoom webinar
When: Tuesday, November 10, 2026, at 7:00pm
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88433219671?pwd=U2c4clU2N3VNK1hISVZaOU91TEh4Zz09
Password: 499294

(2)

Or Telephone:
Dial in to one of the following numbers
+1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248
7799
Webinar ID: 884 3321 9671
Password: 499294

If you have never joined a zoom webinar you can find instructions to join at the following link:
https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/115004954946-Joining-and-participating-in-a-webinar-attendeeYou can also view the meeting live on the Rockbridge County Planning Commission Meeting on the YouTube
Channel at the following link
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI-l_WCVgwvCF3el9__IeqA?view_as=subscriber
You will see a video that has “LIVE NOW” in red text by it and prior recorded meetings. Click on the LIVE
NOW video to watch and listen to the meeting Live or view the recorded video another time.

***************************************************
1. Call to Order
2. Citizen Comments
In addition to physically attending the meeting, Citizens Comments can be made by:
a. Join the Zoom webinar by phone or computer using the instructions at the top of page one (1) of
this document then using the information below:

i. You can click on "Raise Hand" button. The mediator will unmute you and announce that
you can address your comment.
ii. If you call in, the mediator will announce the phone number as it is unmuted and the caller
can then state if he or she wishes to comment.
3. Minutes (October 14, 2026)
4. Board and Committee Reports
5. County of Rockbridge, Virginia, 150 South Main Street, Lexington, Virginia 24450 (Public Hearing See Participation options below) - Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) to modify Chapter 30, Article III,
Sec. 30-12 (Specific Definitions) of the Code to update the definition of “Public Utility Service, Major”
and add a definition of “Data Centers.”
6. County of Rockbridge, Virginia, 150 South Main Street, Lexington, Virginia 24450 (Public Hearing See Participation options below) - Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) to modify Chapter 30, Article VI,
Sec. 30-37D (Special Exceptions in the Agricultural and Limited Uses District - A-1), Sec. 30-38D
(Special Exceptions in the Agricultural and General Uses District - A-2), Sec. 30-39C (Special
Exceptions in the Agricultural Transitional District - A-T), Sec. 30-40C (Special Exceptions in the
Residential General District - R-1), Sec. 30-41C (Special Exceptions in the Residential Mixed District R-2), Sec. 30-42C (Special Exceptions in the General Business District - B-1), and Sec. 30-44C (Special
Exceptions in the General Industrial District - I-1) pertaining to data centers.
Public Hearing – Participation Options
In addition to physically attending the meeting, public hearing comments can be made by
joining the Zoom webinar by phone or computer using the instructions at the top of page
one (1) of this document, then using the information below:
I. You can click on "Raise Hand" button. The mediator will unmute you and announce that
you can address your comment.
II. If you call in, the mediator will announce the phone number as it is unmuted and the
caller can then state if he or she wishes to comment.
7. Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) Discussion a. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
8. Adjourn

A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION HELD ELECTRONICALLY AND IN PERSON IN THE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING, 150 SOUTH MAIN STREET, LEXINGTON,
VIRGINIA ON OCTOBER 14, 2026, AT 7:00 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
SECRETARY:
STAFF:
COUNTY ATTORNEY:
OTHERS:

TOM BEEBE, ADAM SANDRIDGE, JAY
MELVIN, DAVID WHITMORE
ANTHONY SUBRIZI
CHRIS SLAYDON
NEIL WHITMORE, JASON TYREE, VIVECA
HANSON
JOHN DRYDEN
* * * * *

Mr. Beebe called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and announced that Mr. Subrizi was
unable to physically attend the meeting due to being out of town but had the opportunity to
participate in the meeting electronically. Due to an illness, Mr. Beebe said that Mr. Subrizi may
be absent from the meeting.
Mr. Beebe conducted the following verbal roll call: Mr. Subrizi – absent, Mr. Melvin present, Mr. Sandridge – present, Mr. Whitmore – present, Mr. Beebe – present.
Mr. Beebe discussed that citizens had the opportunity to participate in the meeting
remotely, via Zoom or phone, in addition to being physically present. The instructions for the
remote participation options were available on the County website. Those wishing to view the
meeting, live or after the fact, could do so on the Rockbridge Planning Commission YouTube
channel, also linked on the County website.
* * * * *
The second item on the agenda was the citizen comment period.
Mr. Beebe asked if there was anyone physically present that had signed up to speak.
Ms. Hanson said there was no one that had signed up.
Mr. Beebe asked if there was anyone wishing to comment via phone or Zoom.
Mr. Slaydon said there were no hands raised.
* * * * *
The third item on the agenda was a review of the minutes from the September 9, 2026
Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Beebe asked if the Commissioners had the opportunity to review the minutes as
provided and if there were any questions or comments.
At 7:02 pm, Mr. Sandridge made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted.
Mr. Melvin seconded the motion.
The motion was approved unanimously.
1

* * * * *
The fourth item on the agenda was a review of the Board and Committee actions that had
taken place during the prior month.
Mr. Whitmore reported that following had taken place:
- At its October 13, 2026 meeting, the Board of Supervisors reappointed Mr. David
Whitmore to serve a new term as a member of the Planning Commission.
- At the September 28, 2026 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board reviewed the
proposed zoning text amendment to County Code Chapter 30, Article VII, Section 72,
pertaining to solar facilities. The amendment, required in order to comply with recent
changes to State Code, was approved by the Board of Supervisors.
- Additionally at its September 28, 2026 meeting, the Board of Supervisors reviewed
the draft zoning text amendment to Chapter 30, Article III, Section 12 of the County
Code to update the definition of Agrivoltaics. The amendment was approved.
- Lastly, at its September 28, 2026 meeting, the Board of Supervisors reviewed the
draft zoning text amendment to Chapter 30, Article VII, Section 62 of the County
Code pertaining to manufactured homes. The Board approved the amendment.
- The TCO Board met on October 7 and reviewed the revised site plans for the Circle K
convenience store on N Lee Hwy, and the revised plans for Renovating Rockbridge
LLC Storage building, near the intersection of Route 11 and Route 39. The TCO
Board approved both revised site plans.
- The Board of Zoning Appeals did not meet in September.
- The Community Development Committee met on September 21, 2026 and reviewed
the previous Planning Commission meeting and upcoming Board of Supervisors
agenda.
* * * * *
The fifth item on the agenda was a zoning text amendment pertaining to the use of
manufactured homes in various zoning districts.
County of Rockbridge, Virginia, 150 South Main Street, Lexington, Virginia 24450 Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) to modify Chapter 30, Article VI, Sec. 30-40B (Permitted
Uses in the Residential General District - R-1), Sec. 30-41B (Permitted Uses in the
Residential Mixed District - R-2), Sec. 30-42B (Permitted Uses in the General Business
District - B-1), Sec. 30-42C (Special Exceptions in the General Business District - B-1)
and Sec. 30-45 (Flood Hazard District - FH-1) of the Code to modify the regulations
pertaining to manufactured homes. The full text of the draft amendment can be obtained
by contacting the Office of Community Development (contact information below).
Mr. Slaydon gave a brief overview of the proposed zoning text amendment to the County
Code, pertaining to the use of manufactured homes in various zoning districts. It was reviewed
that the proposed zoning text amendment was in response to recent changes to Virginia State
Code that were enacted during the 2026 Legislative Session. House Bill 655, which went into
effect on July 1, 2026, pertained to the zoning requirements for manufactured homes. It was
noted that, in addition to the current proposed zoning text amendment, the Planning Commission
2

had previously reviewed and recommended approval of an amendment relating to the
manufactured housing regulations for the County. This zoning text amendment was approved
and adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their September 28, 2026 meeting.
Mr. Slaydon discussed that further updates to the zoning ordinance were required in order
to comply with the recent State Law changes. The proposed zoning text amendment applied to
Chapter 30, Article VI of the County Code, pertaining to uses in various zoning districts.
Specifically, the draft modifications were found in Sections 30-40B (Permitted Uses in the
Residential General District - R-1), 30-41B (Permitted Uses in the Residential Mixed District R-2), 30-42B (Permitted Uses in the General Business District - B-1), 30-42C (Special
Exceptions in the General Business District - B-1) and 30-45 (Flood Hazard District - FH-1) of
the County Code. The Planning Commission reviewed the draft amendments at its August 12,
2026 meeting and instructed staff to take the matter to public hearing at a future meeting.
Reviewing the proposed changes, Mr. Slaydon said that while manufactured housing was
allowed in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts under existing Regulations, the proposed
modification was to remove the requirement that such homes be at least 19 feet in width. It was
discussed that the stipulation in width prohibited the use of a single-wide dwelling in the
Residential zoning districts.
Mr. Slaydon noted that under the new provisions of the State Law, manufactured homes
of any size homes could not be treated differently than a stick-built dwelling. Mr. Slaydon said
that in the B-1 zoning district, the Regulations had provisions for one- and two- family dwellings
as permitted uses and allowed manufactured homes only as a use by special exception. At the
previous direction of the Planning Commission, the draft amendment added the ability to place
manufactured homes in the B-1 zoning district as a permitted use while removing it as a use by
special exception.
Lastly, the proposed modifications extended to the FH-1 zoning district. The existing
Regulations allowed for structures to be placed in the FH-1 district as a use by special exception
when used in accessory to the permitted uses in the district. However, manufactured homes were
not allowed to be used for this accessory structure purpose. The proposal was to remove the
statement of exception that disallowed manufactured homes as accessory structures under the use
by special exception.
Mr. Beebe asked if the Planning Commission had any questions or comments on the draft
amendment.
Mr. Whitmore asked what Chapter 30, Article VI of the Rockbridge County Code
pertained to.
Mr. Slaydon said that within Article VI were the regulations for the Uses within Districts,
which covered the uses in all districts in the County, from the Agricultural zoning districts to the
Conservation zoning district. It was clarified that, of the multiple zoning districts covered in
Article VI, the proposed modifications pertained only to the R-1, R-2, B-1, and FH-1 zoning
districts.
At 7:10 pm, Mr. Beebe opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone
physically present that had signed up to comment.
Mr. Slaydon said there was no one that had signed up.
Mr. Beebe asked if there were any hands raised via Zoom or phone.
Mr. Slaydon said he saw no hands raised.
Mr. Beebe closed the public hearing at 7:11 pm and asked if there was any additional
conversation.
3

Hearing none, at 7:12 pm, Mr. Whitmore made a motion to recommend to the Board of
Supervisors that the proposed zoning text amendment pertaining to the use of manufactured
homes be approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Melvin seconded the motion.
The motion was approved unanimously.
* * * * *
The sixth item on the agenda was a zoning text amendment pertaining to the definition of
Public Utility Service, Major, and Public Utility Service, Minor.
County of Rockbridge, Virginia, 150 South Main Street, Lexington, Virginia 24450,
Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) to modify Chapter 30, Article III, Sec. 30-12 (Specific
Definitions) of the Code to update the definitions of “Public Utility Service, Major” and
“Public Utility Service, Minor.” The full text of the draft amendment can be obtained by
contacting the Office of Community Development (contact information below).
Mr. Slaydon provided a brief introduction to the proposed zoning text amendment, which
was initiated in order to comply with House Bill 711, that went into effect on July 1, 2026. It was
discussed that the amendment to the Code of Virginia imposed restrictions on the local
government regulation of solar facilities.
Mr. Slaydon reviewed that at its September 28, 2026 meeting, the Board of Supervisors
reviewed the draft zoning text amendment to Chapter 30, Article 7, Section 30-72 of the County
Code pertaining to Solar Facilities. This amendment was previously reviewed and recommended
for approval by the Planning Commission at their August 12, 2026 meeting, in addition to
proposed amendments to the Public Utility Service, Major, and Public Utility Service, Minor
definitions. The Board’s action, however, did not extend to include the proposed definitions
amendments.
It was discussed that the notice of public hearings pertaining to the Planning
Commission’s August 12, 2026 meeting and the Board of Supervisors September 28, 2026
meeting, properly advertised the amendments to the Solar Facilities Section of the County Code.
However, the notices did not extend to include the proposed modifications to the Public Utility
Service, Major, and Public Utility Service, Minor definitions. The public hearing at the current
meeting was to ensure that the proper advertisements were made prior to the hearing, as required
by the Code of Virginia. The full text of the draft amendment was included in the Planning
Commission package.
Mr. Beebe asked if there were any comments from the Planning Commission.
Hearing none, Mr. Beebe opened the public hearing at 7:15 pm and asked if there was
anyone physically present that had signed up to comment.
Mr. Slaydon said there was no one that had signed up.
Mr. Beebe asked if there were any hands raised via phone or Zoom.
Mr. Slaydon said there were no hands raised.
Mr. Beebe closed the public hearing at 7:16 pm and asked if there was any discussion
from the Commission members.
At 7:16 pm, Mr. Melvin made a motion to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that
the zoning text amendment to the modify Chapter 30, Article III, Sec. 30-12 (Specific
4

Definitions) of the Code to update the definitions of “Public Utility Service, Major” and “Public
Utility Service, Minor” be approved.
Mr. Sandridge seconded the motion.
The motion was approved unanimously.
* * * * *
The seventh item on the agenda was a discussion pertaining to potential zoning text
amendments.
The first proposed zoning text amendment that was discussed pertained to potential
regulations regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).
Mr. Slaydon reviewed that the discussion regarding ADU regulations was brought about
due to recent changes in state law, House Bill 531, which were adopted during the 2026
legislative session, and are set to take effect on July 1, 2027. The amendment related to the use
of ADUs in residential zoning districts. Mr. Slaydon noted that staff had prepared draft language
that could be utilized pertaining to the use of ADUs.
Reviewing past actions, Mr. Slaydon stated that the Planning Commission had previously
reviewed Senate Bill 531 at their September 9, 2026 meeting. At that time, discussion was held
regarding the required modifications to the Residential zoning district along with the need for
regulations pertaining to ADUs for the Agricultural zoning districts. Mr. Slaydon noted that the
Residential zoning districts make up approximately 1.5 percent of the County, and the
Agricultural zoning districts comprise about 72 percent of the County. It was discussed that the
Office of Community Development receives questions pertaining to ADUs, and they are often
regarding the Agricultural zoning districts. Draft language for a potential zoning text amendment
pertaining to ADUs had been prepared by staff and included in the Planning Commission
package.
Mr. Slaydon noted that, in Mr. Subrizi’s absence, he had requested that staff provide a
copy of his recent email from September 22, 2026, which he had sent to all members of the
Planning Commission, with comments on potential regulations for ADUs. It was discussed that,
based on the previous directions given by the Planning Commission at their September 9, 2026
meeting, all of the points made in Mr. Subrizi’s comments had already been incorporated into the
draft ADU ordinance. The draft ADU ordinance prepared by staff, incorporating the regulations
required by State Law and the previous comments of the Planning Commissioners, was included
in the meeting package.
Mr. Slaydon discussed that the provisions for ADUs would be planned for inclusion into
the existing Chapter 30, Article VII, Section 30-75, pertaining to additional dwellings on a single
lot. The existing Section of the Regulations included a provision for temporary buildings used in
conjunction with construction work. Mr. Slaydon said the proposed amendment included striking
the existing language pertaining to temporary buildings and replacing it with regulations
pertaining to ADUs. It was discussed that staff would like to receive directions from the Planning
Commission regarding the existing draft as presented and return with modifications for review at
a future Planning Commission meeting. It was noted that there was currently a blank included in
the draft ordinance pertaining to the overall square footage allowance for an ADU, which could
be filled in after additional discussion with the Planning Commission.
An example of a definition for an Accessory Dwelling Unit was included in the Planning
commission package. Mr. Slaydon discussed that, in addition to the draft definition for accessory
5

dwelling unit, additional definitions may be included in the zoning text amendment that do not
exist in the Zoning Ordinance. Examples of such terms for which definitions could be added
included dwelling unit and two-family dwelling.
Mr. Beebe asked if staff was looking for input on the maximum square footage restriction
for ADUs.
Mr. Slaydon said that 500 square feet had been discussed as the limit on square footage at
the previous Planning Commission meeting but welcomed additional discussion.
Mr. Beebe said he would hate to place such a restrictive number and suggested the limit
for the ADU could be a percentage, potentially 50 percent, of the square footage of the main
dwelling. Mr. Beebe noted that the average house size is likely around 2,000 square feet in size.
Mr. Slaydon said that, based on research, the average size of a dwelling in Virginia is
close to 2,000 square feet.
Mr. Beebe asked if a square footage restriction were to be put in place, whether it would
include only the first floor, or multiple floors.
Mr. Slaydon said that a definition for the size restriction could be developed, but he had
thought that the size limitation would apply to the conditioned portion of the dwelling. It was
discussed that the square footage could include gross area of the dwelling, to include attached
garages, for example, or only consider the livable or conditioned area.
Mr. Melvin said he thought that the discussion at the previous Planning Commission
meeting included the limitation for the ADU as a percentage of the main dwelling.
Mr. Beebe said there had been some percentages discussed, but there was no consensus
reached.
Mr. Slaydon said that staff could do additional research to determine what certain
percentages would look like. It was added that, per House Bill 531, localities had the option of
adding a maximum square footage regulation for ADUs, but it was not a requirement. The
section of the State Code pertaining to the option of adding an ADU square footage requirement
was read as follows: “Limits on floor area, lot coverage, and impervious area of an ADU of no
less than (i) 350 square feet on lots less than 2,500 square feet and (ii) 500 square feet on lots
2,500 square feet or greater;” Mr. Slaydon noted that a 2,500 square foot lot is very small, at
about 0.05 acre, the size of which is rare to see in Rockbridge County.
Mr. Beebe suggested staff look at the square footage limit but noted he felt that 500
square feet was small in size.
Mr. Melvin suggested a square footage limit of 50 percent of the size of the dwelling,
such that the size of the ADU is balanced with the size of the dwelling.
Mr. Beebe said he was not sure what the correct percentage was but suggested that the
500 square foot limit could be removed and only limit to a percentage of the main dwelling.
Mr. Whitmore asked if the draft regulations pertained only to the residential zoning
districts.
Mr. Slaydon said that the ordinance was drafted such that it applies to all zoning districts,
but the ADU would be required to meet setbacks based on the zoning district in which it is
located. It was added that, according to the regulations of House Bill 531, the setbacks for ADUs
in the residential zoning districts are not able to be greater than those for accessory structures in
the same zoning district.
Mr. Whitmore asked if that requirement only applied to the residential zoning districts.
Mr. Slaydon said yes.

6

Mr. Whitmore asked about the regulation in the draft ordinance that prohibits the
placement of an ADU on a parcel with more than one existing dwelling unit.
Mr. Slaydon said that the topic was briefly discussed at the previous Planning
Commission meeting. It was noted that the State Code amendment pertaining to ADUs allowed
for such units to be either attached or detached from the main structure. Mr. Slaydon discussed
the distinction of an attached ADU versus a two-family dwelling or duplex, stating that twofamily dwellings would likely need to be provided for as a use in the agricultural zoning districts.
It was discussed that the 2021 Building Code defined a duplex as a dwelling with two
independent living units. Mr. Slaydon said two independent living units could be a duplex or a
single-family dwelling with an attached ADU.
Mr. Beebe said the draft ordinance seemed to be close to completion and asked if staff
wanted to continue working on the language and return to the Planning Commission with an
updated draft.
Mr. Slaydon said staff would anticipate additional discussion on the draft ordinance at the
next meeting. It was added that staff had also identified clarifications to the text of the draft
ordinance that could be incorporated prior to the next meeting.
Mr. Slaydon noted that no action was required on this agenda item.
Mr. Beebe asked if the Planning Commission should direct staff to take the matter to
public hearing.
Mr. Slaydon said that was not necessary at the time, as staff would be continuing to work
on the draft ordinance and present it for discussion at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Whitmore discussed that there could be a scenario where two single-family dwellings
are located on a large acreage of land that would provide ample space for an ADU or garage
apartment/dwelling, but the use would not be permitted under the current draft language. Mr.
Whitmore suggested factoring in the acreage of a parcel when determining how many dwelling
units could be located on a property.
Mr. Slaydon discussed that, as the State Code had allowances for attached ADUs, it
would be unusual to allow a duplex to add an attached ADU. Mr. Slaydon said there may be
provisions that could be created based on the acreage of a parcel and the distance between the
primary dwelling(s) and the ADU.
* * * * *
The second potential zoning text amendment that was discussed pertained to the use of
data centers.
Mr. Slaydon reviewed that, at its August 24, 2026 meeting, the Board of Supervisors
instructed staff to discuss potential regulations pertaining to data centers with the Community
Development Committee. At the September 21, 2026 Community Development Committee
meeting, the Committee discussed data centers and potential concerns regarding the use and
regulation thereof.
The existing definition of “Public Utility Service, Major,” in the County Code was
reviewed, which included the use of data centers. Mr. Slaydon said that, under the existing
ordinance, Public Utility Service, Major is provided for as a use by special exception in the
following zoning districts: Conservation (C-1) zoning district, Agricultural and Limited Uses (A1) zoning district, Agricultural and General Uses (A-2) zoning district, Agricultural Transitional
(A-T) zoning district, General Business (B-1) zoning District, and Planned Business (B-2)
7

zoning district. Additionally, the use is permitted in the General Industrial (I-1) zoning district. It
was reviewed that, while Public Utility Service, Major, is provided as a use by special exception
in the General Residential (R-1) zoning district and Residential Mixed (R-2) zoning district, the
use does not include generating plants, electric stations and substations, power generation battery
storage facilities, data centers, water and wastewater treatment plants, ground mounted solar
energy projects with a panel zone area of one-quarter (0.25) acre or greater, and other related
facilities such as equipment/laydown yards and office buildings.
Mr. Slaydon reviewed that the Community Development discussed the current ordinance
and felt it would be beneficial to recommend that the Planning Commission explore removing
data centers from the existing Public Utility Service, Major definition, develop a separate
definition for data centers, and provide for the use as a use by special exception in various zoning
districts, including the I-1 zoning district. Mr. Slaydon explained that removing data centers from
the Public Utility Service, Major definition, and adding the use as a special exception in the I-1
zoning district, would make the use a legislative process, rather than the current regulatory
process. Doing so would allow the Planning Commission to review any such application for a
data center and recommend associated conditions to the Board of Supervisors, who would have
the ability to impose conditions on the use. It was added that under the current ordinance, with
Public Utility Service, Major as a permitted use in the I-1 zoning district, conditions would not
be able to be imposed on the use.
Mr. Slaydon discussed that a draft definition of data center had been developed by staff
through research of ordinances for other localities throughout the Commonwealth and was
included in the Planning Commission package for review. The proposed definition was read as
follows: “A facility, building, or group of buildings are used primarily for the storage,
processing, management, transmission, and distribution of digital data and information, including
associated computer servers, networking equipment, telecommunications equipment, power
supplies, backup generators, cooling systems, and other supporting infrastructure.”
It was mentioned that the Community Development Committee had also discussed that
there could be benefits to developing a full data center ordinance in the future.
Mr. Slaydon reviewed that the actions proposed under the current draft zoning text
amendment included removing data centers from the existing Public Utility Service, Major
definition, develop a data center definition, and determine what zoning districts the use of data
centers would be included in as a use by special exception.
Mr. Beebe said it would be great to remove data centers from the existing Public Utility
Service, Major definition and create a separate definition for data centers.
Mr. Sandridge said he agreed with the proposal of making data centers a use by special
exception in the I-1 zoning district.
Mr. Beebe and Mr. Whitmore said they agreed.
Mr. Slaydon discussed that many of the concerns that have been raised regarding data
centers pertains to those facilities with a large overall size and scale. It was discussed that the
existing data center within the County was the Peterson Data Center associated with Rockbridge
Area network Authority (RANA) located on the Washington and Lee campus. Mr. Slaydon said
there may be consideration for size of such data centers when determining whether a special
exception permit is necessary.
Looking at how the use of data centers would be addressed in each zoning district, Mr.
Slaydon reviewed that the C-1 zoning district was mostly comprised of land that was owned at a
national, state or County level, including some properties bought by the County during a
8

previous flood mitigation program. The A-1 and A-2 zoning district were reviewed as having
similar uses, but the A-1 zoning district encompasses more steep slopes of the mountains and
foothills. As such, data centers at a specified size limit may be more appropriate in the A-2
zoning district than the A-1 zoning district. Mr. Slaydon said that the A-T zoning district, as a
transitional zone between more rural and urban zones, may be appropriate for data centers as a
use by special exception. The R-1 and R-2 zoning district did not currently allow for the use of
data centers. Mr. Slaydon said that data centers seemed to be appropriate as a use by special
exception in the B-1 and B-2 zoning districts, and there had been consensus expressed by the
Planning Commission about making the use require a special exception permit in the I-1 zoning
district.
Mr. Beebe said he agreed with the summary provided of not allowing the data centers in
the R-1, R-2, and C-1 zoning districts. Mr. Beebe asked the Planning Commissioners if they
thought that the use should be provided for in the A-1 zoning district.
Mr. Sandridge said that, based on the explanation that much of the A-1 zoning district
contains steep slopes, he would not foresee the desire to undergo a large grading project to locate
such facility in that zoning district.
Mr. Beebe said that keeping the use as a special exception allows conditions to be placed
on such use.
Mr. Whitmore suggested that the proposed zoning text amendment under discussion
could be backed up by an ordinance pertaining to data centers in the future.
Mr. Beebe reiterated the question of whether the use of data centers should require a
special exception permit in the A-1 zoning district or not be allowed at all. Mr. Beebe discussed
that he would hate to prohibit the use completely in the A-1 zoning district, as there may be a
situation where such facility would be appropriate.
Mr. Melvin said that allowing data centers as a special exception in the A-1 zoning
district provides the ability to place conditions on such use.
Mr. Beebe suggested allowing data centers as a use by special exception in both the A-1
and A-2 zoning districts.
Mr. Slaydon acknowledged that data centers are a large topic and discussed that the
Planning Commission could choose to schedule a public hearing for a future meeting on the
proposed amendment that had been reviewed, if there were a consensus to do so.
Mr. Beebe asked if it was an assumption that there would be a future data center
ordinance.
Mr. Slaydon said that a data center ordinance could be pursued in the future, the need for
which was expressed by the Community Development Committee.
At 7:41 pm, Mr. Sandridge made a motion to take the draft zoning text amendment
pertaining to data centers to public hearing at a future Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Melvin seconded the motion.
The motion was approved unanimously.
* * * * *
The final potential zoning text amendment that was discussed pertained to the existing
definition of special events.

9

Mr. Slaydon reviewed that at its June 10, 2026 meeting, the Planning Commission
discussed several potential zoning text amendments that could be considered in the future. One
of the topics reviewed included the existing definition of special events.
Mr. Slaydon discussed the current definition of special events included in the County
Code, which is as follows: “Weddings, receptions and reunions which are advertised or marketed
in any form including, but not limited to, posters, business cards, internet, and media outlets;
serves an entrepreneurial purpose; includes fees/charges for goods/services; and/or whenever
there is an admission fee or leasing fee. This definition does not include private parties or private
functions that do not meet the above stated criteria. Events regulated under Chapter 4, Article II
of the County Code do not fall under this definition or associated requirements, and a special
event for which a Special Exception Use Permit has been issued under these Regulations shall be
exempt from Chapter 4, Article II of the County Code.”
It was reviewed that under the current ordinance, special events were a use by special
exception in the A-1, A-2, and A-T zoning districts. The proposed zoning text amendment
included amending the existing definition of special events and potentially adding the use as a
special exception in the B-1 zoning district. Mr. Slaydon said there had been conversations with
landowners in the past regarding the potential for having special events in the B-1 zoning district.
Mr. Beebe said it would be logical to have such use in the B-1 zoning district.
Mr. Slaydon said that the agenda item was for discussion purposes only, and no formal
action was anticipated.
Mr. Slaydon reviewed that, during the special exception application process for
Lexington Golf and Country Club, now Tribrook Club, the ability to host special events at the
site was discussed. A May 8, 2026 zoning determination letter made the determination that the
non-conforming use of special events in the R-1 zoning district was neither allowed, no
permitted, under the special exception permit for the country club. Therefore, a separate action
would be required in order to resume holding special events. Mr. Slaydon discussed that there
were certain accessory uses to the country club that would be allowed to continue under the
special exception permit, such as golf tournaments and associated receptions, and pool parties. It
was noted that the special exception permit for the country club also contained conditions
associated with such accessory uses.
Mr. Beebe said the events discussed pertained to those outside of the membership.
Mr. Slaydon added that he had discussed the previously mentioned determination with
the General Manager of Tribrook Club, and they were unsure at that time if they would be
pursuing additional actions related to special events. However, Mr. Slaydon said that he believed
there were improvements needed to the existing definition of special events and recommended
discussing the possibility of adding the use by special exception in the B-1 zoning district.
Mr. Beebe said he thought that the use should be added as a special exception in the B-1
zoning district and asked if the Commissioners had any discussion on the matter.
Mr. Sandridge said he agreed with adding the use to the B-1 zoning district.
Mr. Slaydon clarified that the use of special events would be a special exception in the B1 zoning district.
Mr. Sandridge pointed out that part of the conversation regarding the Tribrook Club was
its location in the R-1 zoning district.
Mr. Slaydon said that was correct, Lexington Golf and Country Club was a legal, nonconforming use, having started prior to the initial introduction of zoning in Rockbridge County
in the 1970’s. It was discussed that when the renovation of the country club was first discussed,
10

Rockbridge County did not have any provisions for the use in the R-1 zoning district. Mr.
Slaydon reviewed that in 2020, Rockbridge County went through a zoning text amendment
process to define “Country Club” and “Golf Course,” and add the uses as a use by special
exception in the R-1 zoning district. The definition of “Country Club,” however, does not
include the ability to host special events. The previous legal non-conforming use was granted a
special exception in July of 2025.
Mr. Slaydon reviewed that zoning text amendments can be initiated by a motion of the
Planning Commission or a resolution by the Board of Supervisors. It was discussed that it is not
unusual for a particular project to propel a discussion regarding a zoning text amendment.
Mr. Beebe suggested moving forward with adding the use of special events as a special
exception in the B-1 zoning district. Mr. Beebe asked what Mr. Slaydon needed in order to move
forward.
Mr. Slaydon said that staff would need direction from the Planning Commission on how
they would like to proceed.
Mr. Beebe recommended staff look at modifying the definition of special events as well
and returning to the Planning Commission at a later date with the findings.
* * * * *
Prior to adjourning, Mr. Beebe asked members of the audience if they were in attendance
for a particular agenda item.
From the audience, the attendees discussed that they were interested in the conversation
regarding data centers.
Mr. Slaydon discussed that a public hearing on the potential zoning text amendment
pertaining to data centers would be planned to be held at the next Planning Commission meeting,
on November 10, 2026.
Mr. Slaydon added that Planning Commission meetings are regularly scheduled for the
second Wednesday of the month. However, in November 2026, the typical meeting date falls on
the Veteran’s Day holiday. As was noted on the annual schedule adopted at the beginning of the
year, the November Planning Commission meeting will instead be held on Tuesday, November
10, 2026.
Mr. Beebe asked if there were any other items for discussion.
Mr. Slaydon said no and thanked the Commissioners for their time.
Mr. Beebe asked if the Planning Commissioners had any additional comments.
Hearing none, at 7:49 pm, Mr. Whitmore made a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Sandridge seconded the motion.
The motion was approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________________
Christopher T. Slaydon
Secretary
11

AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION, HELD AT THE ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2026
AGENDA ITEM:

County of Rockbridge, Virginia, 150 South Main Street, Lexington,
Virginia 24450, Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) to modify Chapter
30, Article III, Sec. 30-12 (Specific Definitions) of the Code to
update the definition of “Public Utility Service, Major” and add a
definition of “Data Centers.”

SUBMITTED BY:

Chris Slaydon - Director of Community Development

DATE:

November 4, 2026

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
At its August 24, 2026, meeting, the Board of Supervisors instructed staff to discuss
data centers at an upcoming Community Development Committee and bring information
back to the Board.
At its September 21, 2026, meeting the Community Development Committee discussed
concerns about data centers and how data centers are currently regulated.
Under current ordinance, Public Utility Service, major is defined as:
““Public Utility Service, major” means service of a regional nature which normally
entails the construction of buildings or structures such as generating plants and
sources, electrical switching facilities and stations or substations, power
generation battery storage facilities, data centers, water and sewer operations,
including water and wastewater treatment plants, or ground mounted solar
energy projects with a panel zone area of one-quarter (0.25) acre or greater, and
similar facilities. Included in this definition are also electric, gas, and other utility
transmission lines of a regional nature which are not otherwise reviewed and
approved by the Virginia State Corporation Commission. Also included in this
definition are other facilities necessary for the provision and maintenance of such
utilities, to include equipment/laydown yards and office buildings.”
After reviewing the current ordinance, the Community Development Committee
felt it would be beneficial to suggest to the Planning Commission to explore
removing data centers from the major public utility service definition, define data
centers specifically, and provide for the use, by special exception in various
zoning districts including the I-1 District. By providing for data centers by special
exception in the I-1 District, it would take data centers from the current
regulatory process (as a permitted use) to a legislative process (as a use by
special exception) in the I-1 District. Additionally, the modification would provide
the ability for the Planning Commission to recommend conditions and for the
Board of Supervisors to impose conditions associated with the use.

Staff have researched other definitions for data centers in the Commonwealth
and developed the following definition that could be utilized:
“A facility, building, or group of buildings are used primarily for the storage,
processing, management, transmission, and distribution of digital data and
information, including associated computer servers, networking equipment,
telecommunications equipment, power supplies, backup generators, cooling
systems, and other supporting infrastructure.”
At the October 14, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission
reviewed a proposed zoning text amendment to the existing definition of “Public Utility
Service, Major,” and Public Utility Service, Minor,” and held a public hearing on the draft
amendment.
After review, the Planning Commission recommended to the Board of Supervisors that
the zoning text amendment to the definitions be approved. The Board of Supervisors is
scheduled to review the zoning text amendment at their November 9, 2026 meeting.
Additionally, at the October 14, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, a potential zoning
text amendment was discussed to remove “data centers” from the existing definition of
“Public Utility Service , Major,” and develop a separate definition for “Data Centers.” The
Planning Commission instructed staff to take the zoning text amendment to public
hearing at a future meeting.
Staff has advertised for the proposed ZTA for the November 10, 2026 Planning
Commission Meeting.
The proposed amendment to the “Public Utility Service, Major” definition is as follows:
“ ‘Public Utility Service, major’ means service of a regional nature which normally
entails the construction of buildings or structures such as generating plants and
sources, electrical switching facilities and stations or substations, power
generation battery storage facilities, data centers, water and sewer operations,
including water and wastewater treatment plants, or ground mounted solar
energy projects with a panel zone area of one-quarter (0.25) acre or greater, and
similar facilities. Included in this definition are also electric, gas, and other utility
transmission lines of a regional nature which are not otherwise reviewed and
approved by the Virginia State Corporation Commission. Also included in this
definition are other facilities necessary for the provision and maintenance of such
utilities, to include equipment/laydown yards and office buildings.”
The proposed definition for “Data Centers” is as follows:
“ ‘Data Centers’ means a facility, building, or group of buildings are used primarily
for the storage, processing, management, transmission, and distribution of digital

data and information, including associated computer servers, networking
equipment, telecommunications equipment, power supplies, backup generators,
cooling systems, and other supporting infrastructure.”
RECOMMENDATION
Consider the information provided, receive public comment, and if there is a consensus
of the Commission, make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
ATTACHMENTS
None

AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION, HELD AT THE ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2026
AGENDA ITEM:

County of Rockbridge, Virginia, 150 South Main Street, Lexington,
Virginia 24450 - Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) to modify Chapter
30, Article VI, Sec. 30-37D (Special Exceptions in the Agricultural
and Limited Uses District - A-1), Sec. 30-38D (Special Exceptions
in the Agricultural and General Uses District - A-2), Sec. 30-39C
(Special Exceptions in the Agricultural Transitional District - A-T),
Sec. 30-40C (Special Exceptions in the Residential General District
- R-1), Sec. 30-41C (Special Exceptions in the Residential Mixed
District - R-2), Sec. 30-42C (Special Exceptions in the General
Business District - B-1), and Sec. 30-44C (Special Exceptions in
the General Industrial District - I-1) pertaining to data centers.

SUBMITTED BY:

Chris Slaydon - Director of Community Development

DATE:

November 4, 2026

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
At its August 24, 2026, meeting, the Board of Supervisors instructed staff to discuss
data centers at an upcoming Community Development Committee and bring information
back to the Board.
At its September 21, 2026, meeting the Community Development Committee discussed
concerns about data centers and how data centers are currently regulated.
Under current ordinance, “Public Utility Service, major,” to include data centers,
is a Use by Special Exception in the following zoning districts:
-

-

C-1 Conservation District
A-1 Agricultural and Limited Uses District
A-2 Agricultural and General Uses District
A-T Agricultural Transitional District
R-1 Residential General District* (the R-1 District does not provide for
generating plants, electric stations and substations, power generation
battery storage facilities, data centers, water and wastewater
treatment plants, ground mounted solar energy projects with a panel
zone area of one-quarter (0.25) acre or greater, and other related
facilities such as equipment/laydown yards and office buildings.)
R-2 Residential Mixed District (the R-2 District does not provide for
generating plants, electric stations and substations, power generation
battery storage facilities, data centers, water and wastewater
treatment plants, ground mounted solar energy projects with a panel

-

zone area of one-quarter (0.25) acre or greater, and other related
facilities such as equipment/laydown yards and office buildings.)
B-1 General Business District
B-2 Planned Business District (the B-2 District provides for all uses
permitted in the General Business District (B-1) are permitted by
special exception

Under current ordinance, Public Utility Service, major is a permitted use in the I1 General Industrial District.
In summary, data centers are currently a use by special exception in the C-1, A1, A-2, A-T, B-1, and B-2 Zoning Districts. The only zoning district that provides
for data centers as a permitted use is the I-1 Zoning District.
After reviewing the current ordinance, the Community Development Committee
felt it would be beneficial to suggest to the Planning Commission to explore
removing data centers from the major public utility service definition, define data
centers specifically, and provide for the use, by special exception in various
zoning districts including the I-1 District. By providing for data centers by special
exception in the I-1 District, it would take data centers from the current
regulatory process (as a permitted use) to a legislative process (as a use by
special exception) in the I-1 District. Additionally, the modification would provide
the ability for the Planning Commission to recommend conditions and for the
Board of Supervisors to impose conditions associated with the use.
At the October 14, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, a potential zoning text
amendment was reviewed to add “data centers” as a use by special exception in the
Agricultural and Limited Uses (A-1) zoning district, Agricultural and General Uses (A-2)
zoning district, Agricultural Transitional (A-T) zoning district, General Business (B-1)
zoning district, and General Industrial (I-1) zoning district. Additionally, the proposed
amendment removes “data centers” from the exception note for the use of “Public Utility
Service, Major,” as a use by special exception in the Residential General (R-1) zoning
district, and the Residential Mixed (R-2) zoning district. The Planning Commission
instructed staff to take the zoning text amendment to public hearing at a future meeting.
Staff has advertised the proposed ZTA for the November 10, 2026 Planning
Commission Meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Consider the information provided, receive public comment, and if there is a consensus
of the Commission, make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
ATTACHMENTS
Article VI - Uses in districts, proposed amendments

Article VI - Uses in districts, proposed amendments
Proposed Zoning Text Amendment
November 10, 2026 Planning Commission
Red = proposed to be added to ordinance
Strikeout = proposed to be removed

ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY CODE
Chapter 30
ZONING ORDINANCE
ARTICLE VI. USES IN DISTRICTS
Sec. 30-37. Agricultural and Limited Uses District - A-1.
A.
Statement of Intent. The Agricultural and Limited Uses District (A-1) is created
in Rural Planning Areas to protect and maintain important agricultural and forestry lands,
mountain areas, natural and scenic resources, critical watersheds, sensitive environmental areas,
and other large tracts of land of rural character within the County in accordance with goals of the
Comprehensive Plan. It is the intent of this District to promulgate existing farm and forestry
operations, conserve natural features and vegetation, protect wildlife habitat, promote new
agricultural and forestry production, and encourage the conservation and maintenance of
sensitive environmental areas.
Residential land uses which are not related to and supportive of active agricultural
and forestry activities are not encouraged within the A-1 District. Such development would be
better located in a designated Growth Area or a Village Residential area as designated on the
Future Land Use Map of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to its adopted goals for new
development, it is the intent of the County to concentrate its efforts to provide services and
infrastructure within the designated Growth Areas. Conversely, individual residences,
subdivisions and other uses in the Rural Planning Areas will receive a lower level of public
service delivery than what would be provided to development located within the designated
Growth Areas and Rural Village Areas.
(Amended by Ord. of 5-27-08)
B.
Minimum Lot Size and Density. In this District, the minimum lot size shall be
two (2) acres. Density shall be subject to the sliding scale described in Section 30-56(5) and
Table 4.

D.
Special Exceptions. In the A-1 District, Special Exception Use Permits may be
granted for one (1) or more of the following uses:
(16)

Data Center

**********
Sec. 30-38. Agricultural and General Uses District - A-2.
A.
Statement of Intent. The Agricultural and General Uses District (A-2) is created
in Rural Planning Areas to protect and maintain important agricultural and forestry lands, natural
and scenic resources, critical watersheds, sensitive environmental areas, and other large tracts of
land of rural character within the County in accordance with goals of the Comprehensive Plan. It
is the intent of this District to promulgate existing farm and forestry operations, conserve natural
features and vegetation, protect river frontages and river basins, promote new agricultural and
forestry production, and encourage the conservation and maintenance of sensitive environmental
areas.
Residential land uses which are not related to and supportive of active agricultural
and forestry activities are not encouraged within the A-2 District. Such development would be
better located in a designated Growth Area or a Village Residential area as designated on the
Future Land Use Map of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to its adopted goals for new
development, it is the intent of the County to concentrate its efforts to provide services and
infrastructure within the designated Growth Areas. Conversely, individual residences,
subdivisions and other uses in the Rural Planning Areas will receive a lower level of public
service delivery than what would be provided to development located within the designated
Growth Areas and Rural Village Areas.
D.
Special Exceptions. In the A-2 District, special exceptions may be issued for one
(1) or more of the following uses:
(27)

Data Center

**********
Sec. 30-39. Agricultural Transitional District - A-T.
A.
Statement of Intent. The Agricultural Transitional District (A-T) is created to
provide a buffer between the more rural and more urban areas of the County. It is also intended
to maintain the current allowable density for development but may serve as a transitional zone
where rezoning to more intensive districts may be considered. It is the intent of this District to
accommodate development in selected rural areas which are located in the vicinity of the
County’s planned service areas for public infrastructure and facilities and where existing roads
are adequate to accommodate additional traffic. Commonly accepted “rural by design” and
“smart growth” principles adopted by the Comprehensive Plan should be employed.

Subdivisions of land must be sensitive to the physical scale and attributes of the
surrounding rural areas. Cluster development is strongly encouraged within the A-T District.
Each A-T cluster development must provide an “open space” parcel within the development.
The subdivision lots must be designed so as to maximize the utility of the remaining open space
tract for a bona fide agricultural, forestal, recreational, or other open space purpose.
C.
Special Exceptions. In the A-T District, special exceptions may be issued for one
(1) or more of the following uses:
(24)

Data Center

**********
Sec. 30-40. Residential General District - R-1.
A.
Statement of Intent. This District is composed of certain quiet, low density
residential areas plus certain open areas where similar residential development appears likely to
occur. The regulations for this District are designed to stabilize and protect the essential
characteristics of the District to promote and encourage a suitable environment for residences,
and to limit activities of a commercial nature. Uses related to nonresidential development should
be designed to increase the vitality and attractiveness of this District as a living environment. To
these ends, development is limited to relatively low concentration and permitted uses are limited
basically to dwellings providing homes for the residents plus certain additional uses, such as
schools, parks, churches, golf courses, country clubs, and certain public facilities that serve the
residents of the District. It is the intent of this Article that no private dump or landfill be allowed
in the R-l Residential General District.
C.
Special Exceptions. In the R-l District, special exceptions may be issued for the
following uses:
(9)
Public Utility Service, major as defined, but not to include generating plants,
electric stations and substations, power generation battery storage facilities, data centers, water
and wastewater treatment plants, ground mounted solar energy projects with a panel zone area of
one-quarter (0.25) acre or greater, and other related facilities such as equipment/laydown yards
and office buildings.

**********
Sec. 30-41. Residential Mixed District - R-2.
A.
Statement of Intent. This District is created to allow for higher density residential
uses and multi-family development in areas proposed for growth and supported by public water
and sewer. Close proximity to commercial services is desirable to encourage pedestrian access
and reduce auto dependence, thus, pedestrian and other non-motorized accesses are to be
encouraged wherever appropriate. The regulations for this District are designed to stabilize and
protect the essential characteristics of the District to promote and encourage a suitable
environment for residences, and to prohibit all activities of a commercial nature. Development is

allowed at a higher density than General Residential, but permitted uses are limited basically to
single and multi-family dwellings providing homes for the residents plus certain additional uses,
such as schools, parks, churches, and certain public facilities that serve the residents of the
District. It is the intent of this Article that no private dump or landfill be allowed in the R-2
Residential Mixed District.
C.
Special Exceptions. In Residential Mixed R 2, special exceptions may be issued
for the following uses:
(7)
Public Utility Service, major as defined, but not to include generating plants,
electric stations and substations, power generation battery storage facilities, data centers, water
and wastewater treatment plants, ground mounted solar energy projects with a panel zone area of
one-quarter (0.25) acre or greater, and other related facilities such as equipment/laydown yards
and office buildings.
**********
Sec. 30-42. General Business District - B-1.
A.
Statement of Intent. Generally, this District covers that portion of the County
intended for the conduct of general business to which the public requires direct and frequent
access, but which is not characterized either by constant heavy trucking other than stocking and
delivery of light retail goods, or by any nuisance factors other than occasioned by incidental light
and noise of congregation of people and passenger vehicles. This includes such uses as retail
stores, banks, theaters, business offices, newspaper offices, printing presses, restaurants and
taverns, and garages and service stations. It is the intent of this Article that no private dump or
landfill be allowed in the B-l General Business District.
C.
Special Exceptions. In General Business, special exceptions may be granted for
one (1) or more of the following uses:
(28)

Data Center

**********
Sec. 30-44. General Industrial District - I-1.
A.
Statement of Intent. The primary purpose of this District is to establish an area
where the primary use of land is for industrial operations, which may create some nuisance, and
which are not properly associated with, nor particularly compatible with residential, institutional,
and commercial service establishments. The specific intent of this District is to:
(1)

Encourage the construction of and the continued use of land for industrial
purposes.

(2)

Prohibit new residential and new commercial use of the land and to
prohibit any other use which would substantially interfere with the
development, continuation, or expansion of industrial type uses in the
District.

(3)

Encourage the discontinuance of existing uses that would not be permitted
as new uses under the provisions of this Ordinance.

(4)

Encourage industrial parks.

It is the intent of this Article that no private dump or landfill be allowed in the I-l
General Industrial District.
C.
Special Exceptions. In General Industrial I-1, special exceptions may be granted
for one (1) or more of the following uses:
(14)
**********

Data Center

AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA PLANNING
COMMISSION, HELD AT THE ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2026
AGENDA ITEM:

Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) Discussion – (A) Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs).

SUBMITTED BY:

Chris Slaydon, Director of Community Development

DATE:

November 4, 2026

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Senate Bill 531, introduced during the 2026 legislative session and signed by the
Governor on April 13, 2026, amended the Code of Virginia, adding Section 15.2-2292.3,
relating to the zoning, development and use of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the
Residential Zoning Districts. The effective date of the bill has is July 1, 2027.
The resulting statute stipulates that localities are required to provide for an ADU as a
permitted accessory use to a dwelling in a residential zoning district.
In response to the upcoming changes in State law, staff have researched potential
language and provisions that could be utilized for a zoning text amendment to comply
with updated regulations.
At its September 9, 2026, meeting the Planning Commission reviewed and discussed
SB 531. Along with the required modifications to the residential zoning districts, the
Commission discussed the need and provisions for the use in the agricultural zoning
districts. Based on the discussion and direction of the Commission, staff have prepared
draft language associated with ADUs.
At the October 14, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission continued its
discussion on ADUs. The discussion included the maximum square footage for an ADU,
and the need for updated definitions.
Per the 2021 Virginia Residential Building Code “ADU” is defined as, “a dwelling unit in
a two-family dwelling that is accessory to the primary dwelling unit. An accessory
dwelling unit provides for separate living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation
facilities for one or more occupants but may share living space, means of egress,
utilities, or other components.”
Furthermore the 2021 Virginia Residential Building Code includes the following
definitions:
DWELLING.
Any building that contains one or two dwelling units, or one dwelling
unit and one accessory dwelling unit, used, intended, or designed
1

to be built, used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied, or
that are occupied for living purposes.
DWELLING UNIT.
A single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one
or more persons, including permanent provisions for living,
sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation.
TWO-FAMILY DWELLING.
A dwelling that includes two dwelling units or one dwelling unit and
one accessory dwelling unit.
For comparison, Chapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Rockbridge County Code
includes the following definitions:
DWELLING.
Means any building or portion thereof which is designed for or used
for residential purposes, except hotels, boarding houses, lodging
houses, tourist cabins, and automobile trailers.
DWELLING UNIT.
Means one (1) or more rooms in a dwelling designed for living or
sleeping purposes and having at least one (1) kitchen.
TWO-FAMILY DWELLING.
Means a building designed for, or occupied exclusively by, two (2) families
living independently of each other.
Recommendation:
No action is required/anticipated. The purpose of the agenda item is to present the draft
language and provide for additional discussion.
Attachments:
Draft ZTAs - ADUs
Sec 30-57 Additional Dwellings on a single lot
Sec 30-58 Off street parking
Virginia Acts of Assembly 2026, Chapter 895 - Amendment related to ADUs

2

Proposed Zoning Text Amendments
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
Planning Commission Discussion -10-14-2026
Sec. 30-57. Additional buildings on a single lot.
After a review of an application, additional buildings on the same lot or parcel of land may be
permitted by the Board of Supervisors.
(1)

Additional Dwellings. One (1) additional dwelling on a single lot may be
permitted provided that:
a.

The arrangement of such additional dwelling is in such a manner that no
requirement of the Virginia Highway Department, Virginia Department of
Health, or the Rockbridge County Zoning Ordinance is compromised.

b.

The arrangement of such additional dwelling is in such a manner so that, if
the lot or parcel of land is ever subdivided, no substandard lots are created
in terms of area and setback requirements for that zoning district.

c.

Three (3) or more dwellings on a single lot or parcel may be permitted by
special exception.

d.

Garage Apartment/Dwelling are required to meet the area and exterior
setback requirements as a primary dwelling for the underlying zoning
district. Garage/apartment that does not meet the internal setback
requirements shall be considered an accessory structure. Only one garage
apartment/dwelling shall be located on a single parcel.
(Added by Ord. of 7-24-23)
(2)

Temporary Buildings. Temporary buildings used in conjunction with
construction work only may be permitted in any district but shall be removed
immediately upon completion or abandonment of construction. Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU). One (1) Accessory Dwelling Unit on a single lot may be
permitted provided that:
a. An ADU is allowed only as an accessory to a single-family detached dwelling.
ADU’s are prohibited on a parcel that has more than one existing dwelling unit.
b. Meet the required front, side, and rear setback requirements for a primary dwelling in
the agricultural zoning districts.
c. Meet the required front, side, and rear setback requirements for an accessory
structure dwelling in residential zoning districts.
d. Short term rental of an ADU is prohibited in all zoning districts.
e. The square footage of an ADU shall be no greater than 500 sq feet or ______ percent
than the existing single-family dwelling on the property, whichever is greater.

f.

Owner occupancy of the ADU or the primary dwelling, but not both, at the time of
the Building and Zoning Permit application is submitted to construct or convert an
accessory dwelling unit;
g. An ADU shall be no more than 500 feet from the primary dwelling

Sec. 30-58. Off street parking.
(3)

Parking Space Requirements for All Districts. Off-street automobile storage or
parking space shall be provided with vehicular access to a street or alley and shall
be equal in area to at least the minimum requirements for the specific land use set
forth.
Parking Requirements Based on Land Use:
a.

Dwellings:
(i)

One (1) and two (2) families - Two (2) spaces for each dwelling
unit.

(ii)

Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) - Two (2) spaces for each
dwelling unit.

(iii)

Multi-family, townhouses - One and a half (1 ½) spaces per
dwelling unit except for efficiency apartments for which one (1)
space per dwelling unit shall be provided.

(iv)

Hotels, motels - One (1) space for each bedroom plus one (1)
additional space for each two (2) employees.

(v)

Manufactured home parks - Two (2) spaces per manufactured
home.

(vi)

Travel trailer parks - One (1) space for each travel trailer, motor
home, or camper.

(vii)

Boarding and rooming houses, dormitories - One (1) space for
each bedroom.

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY - 2026 SESSION

CHAPTER 895
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

An Act to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 15.2-2292.3, relating to zoning;
development and use of accessory dwelling units.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

[S 531]
Approved April 13, 2026
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 15.2-2292.3 as follows:
§ 15.2-2292.3. Development and use of accessory dwelling units.
A. As used in this section, "accessory dwelling unit" or "ADU" means an attached or detached dwelling
unit on a residential dwelling lot that:
1. Provides complete independent living facilities for one or more individuals;
2. Is located on the same lot as a proposed or existing primary residence; and
3. Includes facilities for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation.
B. Zoning ordinances for single-family residential zoning districts shall be deemed to include accessory
dwelling units as a permitted accessory use, and no locality shall require compliance with any other
requirements except as provided in this section.
C. Any person proposing an ADU shall first obtain an ADU permit from the locality, for which the
locality may charge a fee of no more than $500. Such fee shall be in addition to any other applicable fees,
including inspection, site, or building permit fees, that may be required in connection with the ADU. A
locality shall issue the permit if the applicant demonstrates that the ADU complies with the requirements of
this section and the local codes and ordinances referenced herein.
D. Localities may require the following:
1. A lease term for the rental of an ADU of 30 consecutive days or longer;
2. Replacement of a primary dwelling's required parking if the construction of the ADU eliminates such
parking;
3. Dedicated parking for the ADU;
4. Limits on floor area, lot coverage, and impervious area of an ADU of no less than (i) 350 square feet
on lots less than 2,500 square feet and (ii) 500 square feet on lots 2,500 square feet or greater;
5. Compliance with (i) building codes, including the requirements of the Uniform Statewide Building
Code (§ 36-97 et seq.), for an accessory dwelling unit if the ADU is attached or for a dwelling unit if the
ADU is detached; (ii) water, sewer, septic, emergency access, flood zone, and stormwater requirements; (iii)
historic and architectural districts and corridor protection restrictions; and (iv) Air Installations Compatible
Use Zone restrictions;
6. Owner occupancy of the ADU or the primary dwelling, but not both, only at the time an application is
submitted to construct or convert an accessory dwelling unit;
7. That the ADU shall be no more than 500 feet from the primary dwelling;
8. No ADUs on a residential lot that has more than one dwelling unit; and
9. No ADUs sold separately or subdivided from the primary dwelling.
E. Localities shall not require the following:
1. Rear or side setbacks for the ADU that are greater than the setback required for the primary dwelling
or the setback required for accessory structures on the residential lot, whichever is less;
2. Restrictions for ADUs that are more restrictive than those for single-family dwellings within the same
zoning area with regard to height, rear or side setbacks, lot size or coverage, or building frontage;
3. A restrictive covenant concerning an ADU on a lot or parcel zoned for residential use by a singlefamily dwelling;
4. Improvements to public streets as a condition of allowing an ADU, except as necessary to reconstruct
or repair a public street that is disturbed as a result of the construction of the ADU; or
5. Consanguinity or affinity between the occupants of an ADU and the primary dwelling.
F. Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or limit contracts or agreements between or
among individuals or private entities related to the use of real property, including recorded declarations and
covenants, the provisions of condominium instruments of a condominium created pursuant to the Virginia
Condominium Act (§ 55.1-1900 et seq.), the declaration of a common interest community as defined in
§ 54.1-2345, the cooperative instruments of a cooperative created pursuant to the Virginia Real Estate
Cooperative Act (§ 55.1-2100 et seq.), or any declaration of a property owners' association created pursuant
to the Property Owners' Association Act (§ 55.1-1800 et seq.).
G. Nothing in this section shall apply to any existing permits for an ADU approved by the locality prior to
July 1, 2027.

2 of 2
H. Nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict a locality's passage prior to July 1, 2027, of an
ADU ordinance, or a subsequent amendment thereof, that substantially complies with the requirements of
this section.
I. Nothing in this section shall apply to a locality that adopted an ADU ordinance prior to January 1,
2026.
2. That the provisions of this act shall become effective on July 1, 2027.