On the agenda: Rockbridge County meeting — Data Center (Oct 14)

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
October 14, 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: Wednesday, October 14, 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 (September 9, 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 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 - B1), 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.
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 III,
Sec. 30-12 (Specific Definitions) of the Code to update the definitions of “Public Utility Service, Major”
and “Public Utility Service, Minor.
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)
b. Data Centers
c. Special Event Venues
8. Adjourn

AT 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 SEPTEMBER 9, 2026, AT 7:00 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
SECRETARY:
STAFF:
COUNTY ATTORNEY:
OTHERS:

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

Mr. Beebe called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and conducted the following verbal roll
call: Mr. Subrizi – present, Mr. Melvin - present, Mr. Sandridge – present, Mr. Whitmore –
absent, Mr. Beebe – present.
Mr. Beebe reviewed that, in addition to being physically present and participating in the
meeting, citizens had the opportunity to join the meeting remotely, via Zoom or phone. The
instructions for both remote 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 comment.
Mr. Slaydon said there was no one that had signed up.
Mr. Slaydon allowed time for those participating remotely to raise their hands. There
were no remote comments.
* * * * *
The third item on the agenda was a review of the minutes from the August 12, 2026
Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Beebe asked if the Commissioners had the opportunity to review the minutes as
submitted, and if there were any questions or comments.
At 7:02 pm, Mr. Sandridge made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted.
Mr. Subrizi seconded the motion.
The motion was approved unanimously.
* * * * *

1

The fourth item on the agenda was report of the board and committee actions that had
taken place since the previous Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Whitmore reported that the following had taken place:
- At its meeting on August 24, 2026, the Board of Supervisors reviewed and approved
the application by Castle Christian School to develop and operate a private school in
the A-2 zoning district, as recommended by the Planning Commission.
- Neither the TCO Board nor the Board of Zoning Appeals met during the previous
month.
- The Community Development Committee met on August 17th and discussed the agenda
items of the past Planning Commission meeting and upcoming Board of Supervisors
meeting.
* * * * *
The fifth item on the agenda was a discussion pertaining to potential future zoning text
amendments.
The first potential zoning text amendment reviewed pertained to the use of accessory
dwelling units (ADUs).
Mr. Whitmore briefly reviewed recent changes to the Code of Virginia, which necessitate
changes to the current zoning regulations relating to ADUs. Senate Bill 531, introduced during
the 2026 Legislative session and signed by the Governor on April 13, 2026, and is set to take
effect on July 1, 2027. Mr. Whitmore explained that the amended law required localities to
provide for the use of an ADU as an accessory to a dwelling in the Residential Zoning Districts.
In review of the change to State Code, staff researched the regulations of nearby localities and
how they allow for the use, and assembled the findings, the results of which were included in the
Planning Commission package.
Mr. Beebe said he had previously spoken with Mr. Slaydon regarding the change to State
Code and noted that it pertains specifically to residential zoning districts. However, similar
regulations for other zoning districts could also be reviewed.
Mr. Slaydon discussed that the Residential Zoning districts make up a very small portion
of the County, at only about 1.5 percent of the total area. It was reviewed that there had been
previous discussions about incorporating provisions for ADUs into the County Code, and many
of the inquiries that the Office of Community Development receive regarding ADUs pertain to
the Agricultural zoning districts. Mr. Slaydon said that Agricultural zoning districts comprise
approximately 72 percent of the County.
Mr. Subrizi asked if ADUs were permitted in any district, besides garage apartments.
Mr. Slaydon said that was correct. It was discussed that the potential regulations
pertaining to ADUs could be placed in the section of the County Code pertaining to additional
dwellings on a single lot, where the regulations for garage apartments/dwelling are currently
situated in the Code.
The recent amendment to the State Code pertaining to the use of accessory dwelling
units, in Chapter 895 of the Acts of Assembly, was shown on the screen. Mr. Slaydon reviewed
that the amendment contained regulations that localities are required to implement, regulations
that localities may choose to implement, and those that a locality shall not require. Mr. Slaydon
pointed out that Section 3(D) of the amendment pertained to the Regulations that a locality may
choose to require.
2

Mr. Subrizi asked if the review of the amendment could begin earlier in the Section. It
was noted that, although Chapter 30 of the County Code (Zoning Ordinance) contains definitions
for dwelling and dwelling unit, it does not have a definition for an Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU). Mr. Subrizi pointed out that within the text of Chapter 895 of the Acts of Assembly,
Accessory Dwelling Unit or ADU is defined as “an attached or detached dwelling unit on a
residential dwelling lot…” Mr. Subrizi asked if the aforementioned definition would be
interpreted as referring only to lots within a residential zoning district.
Mr. Slaydon said that further on in the text of the amendment, it states that it pertains to
“zoning ordinances for single-family residential zoning districts…” It was discussed that this
language differed from that seen in the previously reviewed section of State Code pertaining to
manufactured homes, which stated that it applied to any zoning district that allowed for single
family dwellings. Therefore, Mr. Slaydon said Chapter 895 was interpreted as pertaining
specifically to the residential zoning districts.
Mr. Subrizi asked if in the current zoning ordinance, placing a garage apartment/dwelling
would require a special exception permit.
Mr. Slaydon said no; a garage apartment/dwelling was a by-right use.
Mr. Beebe asked if that pertained only to the agricultural zoning districts.
Mr. Slaydon said no; it pertained to residential and agricultural zoning districts.
Mr. Subrizi asked if a second dwelling could just be placed in the backyard of a property.
Mr. Slaydon discussed that he thought it was unusual that an attached dwelling unit was
included in the definition of an ADU in the amended State Code, as there is little differentiation
between a duplex and a single-family dwelling with an attached ADU.
Mr. Subrizi said that an attached ADU would be more limited in size than a duplex.
Mr. Slaydon clarified that a locality could opt to limit the size of an ADU, per State
Code.
Mr. Slaydon reviewed that the County Code currently allows for second dwelling on a
single lot, but it has to meet the area and setback requirements and be placed such that the lot
could be subdivided in the future. In the Agricultural zoning districts, for example, adding a
second dwelling to a single lot would require a minimum of four acres, a minimum of 100 feet
between the two dwellings to meet the internal setbacks, and meet the setbacks from the exterior
property lines.
Additionally, Mr. Slaydon said that the County added provisions for a garage apartment/
dwelling, which allows for decreased internal setbacks between structures.
Mr. Subrizi said that as someone who lives in a residential area, he was not enthusiastic
about allowing for such use.
Mr. Slaydon clarified that the zoning text amendment was required due to the change in
State Code.
Mr. Subrizi said he could see the benefit of ADUs for those such as young professionals
or elderly relatives. However, Mr. Subrizi said he was concerned about an ADU being able to be
placed on the small lots of a residential zoning district, such as a half an acre property.
Mr. Melvin noted that the State Code was mandating such provisions.
Mr. Subrizi said that State Law gave localities some leeway in their regulations, and he
was interested in determining how restrictive such an ordinance could be, in order to minimize
potential problems.
Mr. Slaydon reviewed the section of Chapter 895 pertaining to the requirements which
localities could choose to put in place. The first of these potential requirements was a lease term
3

for the rental of the ADU of 30 consecutive days or longer. Mr. Slaydon explained that staff had
previously discussed the implementation of such a regulation, prior to its inclusion in the
amended State Code. It was discussed that the current Zoning Regulations for the County
prohibit whole-house short-term rentals in any Residential Zoning district. However, long-term
whole-house rentals, consisting of 30 days or longer, are permitted in these zoning districts. Mr.
Slaydon said that there would be merits to prohibiting short-term rentals in ADUs, particularly
relating to the need for affordable housing options and increased housing stock.
Mr. Subrizi asked if short-term and long-term rentals were already defined in the
ordinance.
Mr. Slaydon said yes.
Mr. Subrizi asked if the division between short- and long-term rentals was more than or
less than 30 days.
Mr. Slaydon said that a rental of 30 days or more is considered a long-term rental, and
anything less than 30 days is considered a short-term rental.
Mr. Subrizi pointed out that the State Law allowed localities to enact a requirement for
renting 30 days or longer, and as such, the period associated with the regulation put in place by a
locality could be greater than 30 days. Mr. Subrizi provided an example that he was aware of
some residences that lease to students that require a twelve-month lease.
Mr. Slaydon clarified that the lease term could be anything over 30 days.
Mr. Subrizi said that if the lease term of 30 days has worked for other localities, it could
work for the County. It was added that an ADU would likely only accommodate a few people
because of their smaller size.
Mr. Slaydon discussed that, if such a regulation pertaining to the length of rental for an
ADU were implemented by the Board of Supervisors, it would not prevent a landowner from
moving into the ADU and short-term renting the main dwelling.
Mr. Subrizi asked if there was anything a locality could do to prevent such a situation.
Mr. Slaydon said no, not under the current statute. However, that scenario would not be
possible in the Residential zoning districts because whole-house short-term rentals are not
allowed under the current zoning regulations.
Mr. Subrizi asked if a regulation for that scenario was already in place.
Mr. Slaydon said yes; there are more restrictive measures in the residential zoning district
than in the agricultural zoning districts.
Mr. Slaydon asked if there was a consensus of the Planning Commission pertaining to a
potential restriction on the length of rental for an ADU.
Mr. Beebe asked if the City of Lexington also defines long-term rentals as greater than 30
days.
Mr. Whitmore said that, based on research, the City of Lexington places restrictions on
the size of an ADU more than the number of days. It was noted that the City has extensive
language in their Code pertaining to ADUs, particularly in the historic districts.
Mr. Subrizi noted that, according to the change in State Code, any regulations pertaining
to ADUs that a locality had in place prior to January 1, 2026, could remain in place.
Mr. Beebe said he believed the goal of the amendment to State Code was to increase
housing supply, and additional short-term rentals, if ADUs were allowed to be used for that
purpose, would not help with that goal. Mr. Beebe said he was in favor of a 31-day requirement.
Mr. Dryden said his original interpretation of the code section was that it was provided so
that localities would have the ability to prevent short-term rentals. However, in hearing Mr.
4

Subrizi’s interpretation of the Code pertaining to the length of stay, he thought a locality may
have the option to set a length of stay with a number of days greater than 30. Mr. Dryden said
that upon further discussion, he believed that the intent of the provision, however, seemed to be
to allow localities to prohibit short-term rentals. As such, there may be an issue with changing
the number of days to anything greater than 30.
Mr. Subrizi said he thought that the typical long-term rental would have a lease period of
twelve months.
Mr. Dryden said in some instances, particularly for students, the lease term may be nine
months.
Mr. Subrizi asked if a nine-month lease would be considered long-term.
Mr. Slaydon said yes.
Mr. Dryden confirmed that any rental term greater than 30 days would not be considered
short-term, per the definitions of the Regulations.
Mr. Subrizi said that he wanted to put restrictions in place on potential rental uses in
Residential zoning districts, while allowing ADUs for in-law suites or for use by young
professionals.
Mr. Dryden reminded that localities do not have the ability to restrict who could utilize an
ADU.
Mr. Subrizi said he was aware, but increasing the term of rental for a short-term rental
would discourage some uses of ADUs.
Mr. Dryden said he would want to do research to see if it is possible to extend the use
requirements of ADUs beyond 30 days.
Mr. Subrizi said that a rental term of one year might be considered.
Mr. Dryden said he would need to perform additional research.
Mr. Subrizi said he would be fine with a 30-day period.
Mr. Dryden agreed that the language of the Code was 30 days or more.
Mr. Subrizi said that most apartments would not be rented for any less than one year.
Mr. Dryden said he believed the provision in State Code was intended to address shortterm rental use, but he was unsure if there were merits to requiring a longer lease term than 30
days.
Mr. Beebe said it seemed there was consensus amongst the Planning Commissioners to
avoid the use of ADUs as short-term rentals. It was discussed that prohibiting short-term rentals
of ADUs would prevent a bed and breakfast situation. Mr. Beebe said he could see extending the
minimum stay requirement a bit, perhaps by a month, but did not feel any longer of a period was
necessary.
Mr. Sandridge pointed out that the owner of a property has discretion of how long an
ADU would be leased for.
Mr. Beebe said that if a longer lease period were possible, he would suggest not setting a
limit of more than three to six months.
Mr. Dryden said he would be happy to research the question on rental terms.
Mr. Subrizi discussed that keeping the limit of 30 days would allow, for example, a
visiting professional working in the area to have a place to stay during their job commitment.
Mr. Slaydon gave an example of traveling nurses.
Mr. Beebe said he was fine with a period of 30 days, but Mr. Dryden could still do
additional research.
Mr. Dryden said he will take a closer look at the provisions.
5

Mr. Beebe asked if there was a consensus for moving forward.
Mr. Melvin suggested allowing time for Mr. Dryden to do additional research before
deciding.
The next requirements that localities could choose to require, as provided by State Code,
are related to parking for an ADU. The provisions were read as follows: “Replacement of a
primary dwelling’s required parking if the construction of the ADU eliminates such parking,”
and “dedicated parking for ADU.” Mr. Slaydon discussed that the current regulations for oneand two-family dwellings require two parking spaces for each dwelling unit.
Mr. Subrizi asked what qualifications are required for parking spaces.
Mr. Slaydon said there is a square footage requirement for the size of a parking space.
Mr. Subrizi gave the example of a single-family dwelling with three existing parking
spaces and asked if they would be able to add an ADU without needing additional parking.
Mr. Slaydon said yes.
Mr. Subrizi expressed that parking for ADU tenants is a concern, noting that many
housing developments in the area do not allow street parking. Mr. Subrizi said he was unsure
how VDOT determines where street parking is allowed but asked if street parking was permitted
anywhere there were not signs posted stating no parking allowed.
Mr. Slaydon said yes and explained that VDOT has accommodation for on-street parking,
as long as traffic and sight-distances are not blocked. Mr. Slaydon said that issues with on-street
parking are most commonly associated with construction traffic.
Mr. Subrizi said he believed that there were certain exceptions provided for construction
activities as well. It was discussed that a concern of on-street parking associated with ADUs
would be parking in places where it creates a safety hazard, particularly on narrow roadways.
Mr. Subrizi said he would prefer that the parking spaces be located on the property rather than on
the street and asked if there were any subdivisions in the County that had on-street parking.
Mr. Slaydon said he was not aware of any subdivisions with on-street parking. It was
discussed that, in the research of other localities’ ADU ordinances, there was an example from
Rockingham County, which had a provision requiring any property within specified zoning
districts on which an ADU is placed to have direct vehicular access to public or private streets.
Mr. Subrizi said the Rockingham County ordinance may have been in place prior to
January 1, 2026, and therefore would be exempt from the regulations in the Code amendment
under reviewed.
Mr. Slaydon said that unless there was a provision in the Code amendment that stated
localities could not enact such requirement pertaining to access, which he did not see, then it may
be able to be added as part of a zoning text amendment.
Mr. Dryden noted that the amendment lists regulations that could be enacted by a
locality, and those that cannot, leaving a gray area for any regulations that are not listed in either
section. Mr. Dryden said localities may be able to enact regulations that are not listed as a
provision in the State Code section.
Mr. Subrizi asked if the County’s existing regulations pertaining to additional buildings
on a single lot, found in Section 30-57 of the County Code, would not have to be amended
because it was enacted prior to January 1, 2026.
Mr. Slaydon said that was correct, noting that existing regulations pertaining to ADU’s
that were adopted prior to that date would also be exempt from the ordinance.

6

Mr. Dryden read the portion of Chapter 895 of the Acts of Assembly that stated,
“Nothing in this section shall apply to a locality that adopted an ADU ordinance prior to January
1, 2026.”
Mr. Slaydon noted that he was initially concerned about not having had an ADU
ordinance in place prior to the listed January 1, 2026, deadline listed in the Amendment.
However, when it was clarified that the ordinance pertained only to the residential zoning
district, there was less concern.
Discussing items two and three pertaining to parking, Mr. Slaydon said he would also
discuss the regulations with the building department, to ensure that any potential regulations
being considered coordinate with the building code requirements.
Mr. Subrizi said that if such regulations were covered elsewhere, it may not be necessary
to repeat them in the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Slaydon continued to item four on the list of regulations that localities could choose
to enact, whish stated, “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. Subrizi noted that a 2,500 square foot lot would be very small.
Mr. Slaydon agreed, noting that a 2,500 square foot lot would equal 0.05 acres. Mr.
Slaydon said that the rare occurrence of that small of a lot is not likely a concern but asked if the
Planning Commission would be interested in placing a restriction that the ADU would have to be
smaller than the primary dwelling.
Mr. Subrizi suggested a regulation limiting the square footage of the ADU to a
percentage of the main dwelling, and not less than 500 square feet. Mr. Subrizi said he would
prefer a maximum size of 500 square feet or similar size restrictions so that the size of an ADU
cannot be much bigger than 500 square feet.
Mr. Melvin suggested a restriction for ADUs of 60 percent of the size of the primary
dwelling.
Mr. Slaydon noted that a regulation pertaining to the maximum size of an ADU could be
dependent on the zoning district. An example was given of allowing for a larger square footage
or percentage of the primary dwelling for the agricultural zoning districts compared to the
residential zoning districts.
Mr. Beebe said he agreed.
Mr. Slaydon said there seemed to be a consensus limiting the size of an ADU to no larger
500 square feet on lots of 2500 square feet or greater in the residential zoning districts. Mr.
Slaydon asked what size limit the Planning Commission would like to see imposed in the
agricultural zoning districts, noting Mr. Melvin had previously suggested 60 percent.
Mr. Beebe said that would be fine.
Mr. Subrizi asked if 500 square feet would be the limit of the ADU size.
Mr. Slaydon reread the regulation from State Code, which stated the restriction could be
no less than 500 square feet.
Mr. Dryden said if 60 percent of the total square footage of the primary dwelling were
added, the language would have to state that the greater number of the two measurements would
be utilized.
Mr. Subrizi suggested making the requirement no less than 500 square feet.
Mr. Dryden said it would be possible, but the locality could not go below 500 square feet
on the stipulated lot size.
7

Mr. Subrizi said that for small houses, a 500 square foot ADU would be a large size. It
was suggested that the language could state that the size of the ADU would be limited to the
lesser between either 60 percent of the size of the primary dwelling or 500 square feet.
Mr. Dryden said that, per the State Code, localities could not set a requirement of square
footage that is less than 500 square feet for the ADU. Stating, “the lesser of” the two sizes could
present a situation where 60 percent of the main dwelling square footage is less than 500 square
feet. Mr. Dryden said that changing the language to state that an ADU would be limited to the
square footage of “the greater of” either 500 square feet or 60% of the square footage of the
primary dwelling. It was pointed out that 60% of the dwelling square footage would allow for
ADUs that are greater than 500 square feet.
Mr. Subrizi reiterated his proposed language of 500 square feet or 60 percent of the
square footage of the dwelling, whichever is less.
Mr. Dryden explained that such language would still result in scenarios where the lesser
of the two sizes would be less than 500 square feet, which the State Code does not allow for. Mr.
Dryden restated that the language would have to be “the greater of” either 500 square feet or
60% of the square footage of the primary dwelling. Mr. Dryden added that there were not likely
to be many houses that were small enough where 60 percent of the square footage of the
dwelling would be less than 500 square feet. It was pointed out that, on the opposite end of the
spectrum, 60 percent of a larger size house could result in the possibility of adding a fairly large
ADU.
Mr. Subrizi said that leaving open the upper end of the size of an ADU could be an issue
for that reason.
Mr. Dryden said that localities place a limitation of 500 square feet or any number above
that but could not stipulate a smaller square footage.
Mr. Subrizi said that the limitation did not have to be 500, and any number over 500
could be selected.
Mr. Dryden agreed that any square footage above 500 could be picked, or as previously
mentioned, a percentage of the main dwelling, provided that it does not fall below 500 square
feet. If the percentage of the main dwelling selected causes the size to fall below 500 square feet,
then the size permitted for the ADU would be 500 square feet.
Mr. Subrizi said that language was the option that he preferred.
Mr. Slaydon pointed out that there are instances of houses in the County that are very
large in size. An example was given of a 4,000 square-foot house. With a regulation that an ADU
must be no greater than 60 percent of the size of a primary dwelling, such an instance would
allow for a 2400 square foot ADU.
Mr. Dryden reminded that 500 square feet could be the overall limitation for the size of
an ADU. The possibility of placing an upper limit on size at 25 percent of the primary dwelling
square footage. Mr. Dryden said in the previous scenario of a 4,000 square foot house, 25 percent
would allow for a 1.000 square foot ADU.
Mr. Slaydon said in that scenario, 25 percent of a 2,000 square foot house would be 500
square feet for the ADU.
Mr. Subrizi said that a 2,000 square foot house could have an ADU that is well over 1,00
square feet.
Mr. Dryden clarified that Mr. Subrizi’s scenario would be if the maximum size cap was
60 percent.

8

Mr. Slaydon asked if the Planning Commission felt it was positive for an ADU to be that
large in size.
Mr. Subrizi said no.
Mr. Slaydon asked if the Planning Commission wished to start with an ADU regulation
of 500 square feet across the board, noting such regulation could be revisited at a later time.
Mr. Beebe agreed with 500 square feet.
Mr. Slaydon said the Commissioners could continue to think about the potential of such
regulation, applying it to real-life scenarios. It was discussed that there would be merit to
considering the size of ADU permitted for a larger size primary dwelling under such ordinance.
Mr. Slaydon said it would make sense if there was a correlation between the size of a dwelling
and the permitted size of an ADU.
Mr. Sandridge asked what the smallest lot size permitted in the R-1 zoning district was.
Mr. Slaydon said the smallest lot size in an R-1 zone would be half an acre on public
sewer. In an R-2 zoning district, the minimum lot size would be one-quarter acre on public
sewer.
Mr. Sandridge said he was trying to compare that to the size threshold provisions in the
State Code.
Mr. Subrizi reiterated that separate regulations pertaining to ADUs could be developed
for districts other than the Residential zones.
Mr. Beebe asked staff to look at the math of the ADU size restrictions for further
suggestions.
Mr. Slaydon continued to read number five on the list of items that a locality could
require, which was as follows: “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.”
Mr. Slaydon said that a statement could be added to the regulation requiring compliance
with the Building Code, stormwater management and erosion and sediment control requirements,
and Virginia Department of Transportation regulations, which would meet the provision set forth
in item five of the Code amendment.
Mr. Subrizi asked about the need for adequate well and drainfield or septic capacity in
order to construct an ADU.
Mr. Beebe stated that the building code covers such requirements and governs whether a
system has the capacity if additional bedrooms are added.
Mr. Slaydon agreed.
Mr. Beebe said a landowner would have to have their system approved prior to building
an ADU.
Mr. Slaydon clarified that a well and drainfield or septic would have to be approved prior
to receiving a building permit.
Mr. Subrizi said he was unfamiliar with how the size of such systems are determined to
be adequate.
Mr. Beebe said in some scenarios, a septic system is installed with a capacity larger than
the primary dwelling, in which case an ADU could be added to the existing system. However, if
the existing system is not large enough to be adequate, a new system may have to be added to
9

accommodate an ADU. Mr. Beebe reiterated that the Building Department enforces such
regulations pertaining to septic systems.
Mr. Slaydon continued on to read item six on the list of provisions that a locality could
require: “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.” Mr. Slaydon
asked if the Planning Commission would like to require that either the primary dwelling or ADU
be owner occupied at the time of application for the construction of an ADU. Mr. Slaydon gave
an example of a dwelling that is currently being used for long-term rental, and the owner of the
property adding an ADU for the owner’s use or for a second rental dwelling.
Mr. Beebe said such a scenario sounded like adding a second rental house to a property
rather than an ADU and suggested adding language to require the owner's occupation of either
dwelling at the time of application.
Mr. Dryden reiterated that the provisions of the ordinance specified owner's occupation at
the time of application only, which would allow for times when the owner does not occupy one
of the dwellings.
Mr. Slaydon agreed.
Mr. Subrizi said that provision could allow an owner to move out after the application is
submitted.
Mr. Sandridge said he believed the provision in item number nine that localities could
require would address Mr. Subrizi’s concerns, as it allows for a prohibition of subdividing the
ADU from the main dwelling or selling separately from the main dwelling.
Mr. Subrizi said that someone could purchase a house with the intention of selling it, add
an ADU to increase the value, and then rent both dwellings. Mr. Subrizi asked to clarify if both
dwellings could be rented in that scenario.
Mr. Slaydon said both dwellings could be rented in a scenario where the ADU was used
as a long-term rental.
Mr. Beebe felt the occupancy of the dwelling could not be controlled forever.
Mr. Slaydon read provision number seven from the items that a locality could require as
follows: “That the ADU shall be no more than 500 feet from the primary dwelling.”
Mr. Subrizi asked if such a regulation would require the entirety of the ADU to be 500
feet from the main dwelling, or just the closest part of the ADU.
Mr. Slaydon said his interpretation was that the 500 feet would be measured from the
closest point of the primary dwelling to the closest point of the ADU.
Mr. Sandridge asked to confirm that setbacks would still have to be followed for ADUs.
Mr. Slaydon said the external setbacks would have to be maintained.
Mr. Subrizi asked what the setbacks would be.
Mr. Slaydon said that in a residential zone, the setbacks would be 25 feet from the front,
25 feet from the rear, and 15 feet from the sides.
Mr. Subrizi asked if the setbacks Mr. Slaydon mentioned were for the main dwelling
only.
Mr. Slaydon said that was correct, noting that an accessory structure in a residential
zoning district would have setbacks of 25 feet from the front and 5 feet from the side and rear
property lines, if the height of the building was 15 feet or less. Mr. Slaydon added that if an
accessory structure were greater than 15 feet in height up to 35 feet in height, the side and rear
setbacks would be 15 feet. In an agricultural zoning district, the side and rear setbacks for the
same height accessory structure would be 20 feet.
10

Mr. Subrizi asked if an ADU would be considered an accessory structure.
Mr. Slaydon said yes, noting that further in the amendment to State Code, there are
restrictions against setting setbacks for an ADU that are greater than that of an accessory
structure in the zoning district.
Mr. Slaydon asked what the Planning Commission thought about a potential requirement
that an ADU be less than 500 feet from the primary structure. It was noted that, in most cases,
there would have to be less than 500 feet between the primary dwelling and the ADU due to lot
size constraints.
Mr. Beebe said he did not have a strong feeling either way.
Mr. Slaydon noted that there are some occurrences in the County of larger lots in the
Residential zoning districts. An example was given of a recent subdivision in the Poplar Hill
area.
Mr. Sandirdge asked what size lots were created out of the subdivided parcel.
Mr. Slaydon said the new parcels were one acre in size. Mr. Slaydon noted that there is
an existing provision in the Zoning Chapter of the County Code for adding a second dwelling on
a single lot, provided that it can be subdivided in the future based on setbacks and area
requirements. Large setbacks between a main dwelling and ADU would trend more towards a
second dwelling on a lot rather than an ADU. Mr. Slaydon said he believed some people would
still utilize the provisions for a second dwelling on a lot that is not considered an ADU.
Mr. Slaydon said he believed there was merit to requiring that an ADU be located no
more than 500 feet from the main dwelling.
Mr. Beebe agreed.
Mr. Sandridge said he was fine with such a requirement.
Mr. Slaydon read item eight from the list of provisions that a locality could require as
follows: “No ADUs on a residential lot that has more than one dwelling unit.”
Mr. Slaydon said there had been questions about a scenario of a duplex on a single parcel
and whether the owner could then add an ADU to the property as a third dwelling unit.
Mr. Beebe agreed.
Mr. Slaydon read the ninth and final item from the State Code list of regulations that a
locality could require: “No ADUs sold separately or subdivided from the primary dwelling.” Mr.
Slaydon said that adding such provision could be the reason that some people would still utilize
the existing provisions for a second dwelling on a single lot, as it would allow for the second
dwelling to be subdivided off in the future. It was noted that the scenario of a second dwelling on
a single lot was typically more utilized in the agricultural zoning districts. It was also mentioned
that many of the calls that the Office of Community Development receives regarding ADUs
pertain to properties in the residential zoning districts, particularly for use by a family member.
Mr. Beebe said the County would want to accommodate such a scenario.
Mr. Slaydon noted that an ADU built for the purpose of housing family members could
eventually be used for a different purpose, such as a long-term rental.
Mr. Slaydon continued to review Section E of Chapter 895, the amendment to the Code
of Virginia, which listed requirements pertaining to ADUs that localities would not be allowed to
have in place. The first item of the list was read as follows: “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.”

11

Mr. Slaydon covered one potential point of further discussion was that, in an agricultural
zoning district, an ADU could be a minimum of five feet away from the side and rear property
lines while the primary dwelling would have 50-foot setbacks from side and rear property lines.
Mr. Beebe agreed that a greater setback in the agricultural zoning districts would likely
decrease potential issues amongst neighbors.
Mr. Slaydon discussed that the required setbacks may also be determined by the overall
size of an ADU that is allowed in the Agricultural zoning districts, noting that a larger sized
ADU may be better suited with increased setbacks.
Mr. Slaydon confirmed with Mr. Dryden that the County would have the ability to have
differing setbacks per zoning district, noting that Chapter 895 of the Acts of Amendments
pertained only to residential zoning districts.
Mr. Dryden said yes, noting that the intent of the amendment was clearly to reduce
impediments to increasing available housing supply. As the majority of the County’s residential
dwelling are located outside of the residential zoning districts, amending the regulations
pertaining to ADUs in the agricultural zoning districts could be an additional method that would
help work towards the same goal. Mr. Dryden agreed that the amendments of Chapter 895 did
not place any restrictions on regulations pertaining to ADUs in an agricultural zoning district.
Mr. Beebe said he agreed and asked staff to draft such language.
Mr. Slaydon asked Mr. Dryden to confirm that the language toward the end of item E1,
stating “on the residential lot,” still applied only to the residential zoning districts.
Mr. Dryden said yes that was correct. Mr. Dryden noted that the Section of Code also
states single-family residential zoning districts, meaning it would not apply if there was a
residential zoning district only for multi-family dwellings.
Mr. Slaydon asked if the “residential lot” would not apply to the agricultural zones.
Mr. Dryden said no, as the qualifier statement at the top of the Section defines its
applicability to “single-family residential zoning districts.”
Mr. Slaydon discussed that staff had recently taken part in a university course that
focused on the changes to State Law pertaining to zoning that were enacted during the recent
session of the Assembly and enacted in July. Mr. Slaydon said that on many of the topics,
participants were encouraged to consult their locality’s attorney. It was added that the Zoning
Administrator has the authority of interpreting the Code of Virginia and its impact on local
zoning regulations, in consultation with the County attorney.
Mr. Slaydon thanked the Planning Commissioners for the discussion and stated that he
hoped to have a draft of the ordinance for ADUs prepared for review in the coming months.
Mr. Subrizi asked if regulations pertaining to the aesthetics of an ADU could be included,
aside from previously discussed height requirements.
Mr. Beebe said there would not be architectural review requirements like in a
subdivision.
Mr. Subrizi asked if there was a provision that could be added to an ADU ordinance.
Mr. Beebe asked if the Planning Commission would want to add such requirements.
Mr. Subrizi expressed concern about the style of tiny home that could be used in a rural
setting being used in a residential backyard.
Mr. Dryden said the Code amendment clearly stated that it does not prevent regulations
by homeowners’ associations or restrictive covenants. As such, an HOA or subdivision agent
could put restrictions in place preventing the placement of ADUs.

12

Mr. Beebe said it would be hard to tell a landowner in an agricultural zoning district that
they could not place an ADU.
Mr. Subrizi asked if ADUs would have to be placed on permanent foundations.
Mr. Dryden said that a permanent foundation is a requirement of the building code.
Mr. Subrizi said that an ADU is a dwelling.
Mr. Beebe said that an ADU would have to meet building code requirements for placing
some type of permanent foundation.
Mr. Dryden said that the State Code has provisions for a locality to charge a fee of up to
500 dollars for an ADU permit, and asked Mr. Slaydon if he would like to discuss that aspect
with the Planning Commission.
Mr. Slaydon discussed that there is an existing fee associated with obtaining a building
permit, which is split into a zoning fee and building department fee. Mr. Slaydon read section C
of Chapter 895 of the Acts of Assembly, which stated, “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.”
Mr. Subrizi asked if someone applying for an ADU permit would go to the Office of
Community Development during the application process.
Mr. Slaydon said yes; the Office of Community Development has a portion of all
building permit applications that they must sign off on.
Mr. Subrizi asked why a fee would not be charged for the Office of Community
Development’s time.
Mr. Slaydon said there is currently a portion of the building permit fee that is dedicated
as a zoning fee. It was explained that the potential ADU permit fee provided for by the Code
would be assessed in addition to the existing building permit fees.
Mr. Subrizi asked if a building permit applicant would bring payment for the associated
fee at the time of application.
Mr. Slaydon said no, not typically.
Mr. Beebe said a building permit application typically goes to the Building Department
first, before going to the Office of Community Development. It was reiterated that the fee for the
Office of Community Development was already built into the building permit fee.
Mr. Slaydon noted that the cost of a building permit is a percentage of the total expenses
on the project. A portion of the total cost, a specified flat fee, is for the Office of Community
Development’s review of the permit application. Mr. Slaydon said that the ADU fee would be a
flat amount on top of the building permit fees. It was discussed that if the County was looking to
encourage growth of the housing supply, an additional fee may not be appropriate.
Mr. Beebe said he did not see a need for an additional fee if not needed budget-wise.
Mr. Dryden clarified that an ADU fee would be in addition to any fees that are currently
being charged, but localities are not required to assess an ADU fee. It was noted that if the
County were to want to assess such a fee, the proposal would have to go through the public
hearing process.
Mr. Tyree suggested that if an additional ADU fee were to be considered, it may be worth
waiting to see what additional workload would be added for staff in processing building permits
for ADUs.
13

Mr. Beebe and Mr. Subrizi said they agreed.
Mr. Slaydon said that staff had a clear direction from the Planning Commission to
prepare draft ADU regulations and present at a future meeting.
* * * * *
The second potential zoning text amendment reviewed was associated with regulations
for Electronic Message Center (EMC) signage.
Mr. Slaydon reviewed that the existing regulations pertaining to EMC signage were
adopted in 2010 and 2011, which provide basic standards such as size, operation, and
illumination. Under the current regulations, EMC signs are only allowed in a unique Raphine
overlay district, the bounds of which are spelled out in the regulations, and for use by Fire
Departments and Rescue Squads.
Mr. Slaydon discussed that the current regulations for EMCs could be problematic, as
they limit the use to a certain speaker, in this case, Fire Departments, Rescue Squads, and a
unique area in Raphine. Mr. Slaydon stated that previous discussion amongst staff had included
the possibility of allowing EMC signage for all businesses, churches, and schools, while
maintaining the existing limitations regarding the size of an EMC sign. It was noted that Mr.
Dryden had agreed that such restrictions on the use of EMCs would comply with State Code.
Mr. Slaydon added that another option for the restriction of EMC signs while remaining
compliant with State Code, would be to remove the ability to have an EMC sign that is provided
by the current ordinance. This option would allow existing EMC signs to remain as a legal, nonconforming use, but would prohibit the placement of any new EMC signs.
Mr. Dryden noted that limiting the use of EMCs to a specific geographic region, such as
the Raphine area, would comply with the State Code. However, the current provisions limiting
the use to only Fire Departments and Rescue Squads would not be permitted by the State Code.
It was noted that limitations based on the speaker or the content are prohibited.
Mr. Beebe said the discussion of EMC signage has been ongoing for quite some time. It
was discussed that the worst-case scenario of broadly allowing EMC signage use would be every
business along a busy corridor having an EMC sign. Mr. Beebe said it seemed that the County
did not want such a scenario, so further definition of what is acceptable would be necessary.
Mr. Slaydon said the current, more in-depth discussion of EMC signs could be the start of
defining what EMC signage use is acceptable. It was added that there would still be standards in
place for the use of EMCs.
Mr. Beebe asked if such standards included the location, setbacks, and size of such EMC
signs.
Mr. Slaydon added that the standards would also include things like the number of
messages per hour, nighttime illumination levels, no flashing or scrolling, etcetera.
Mr. Beebe asked for the Planning Commissioner’s thoughts, stating he did not like the
idea of allowing EMCs to be placed all along commercial corridors of the County.
Mr. Subrizi asked if the Tourism Corridor Overlay Review Board would play a role in
reviewing signage that lies within the corridor.
Mr. Slaydon said that he believed the TCO Board would be involved in the conversation
regarding EMC signage.
Mr. Subrizi asked if the TCO Board would have to approve EMCs that are proposed for
the overlay district.
14

Mr. Slaydon said no, as the existing County Code provides for administrative approval of
conforming signs in the TCO.
Mr. Dryden asked if exterior building signs had to receive TCO Board approval, an
example being the exterior sign for Dunham’s Sports.
Mr. Slaydon said that in the example given, TCO approval was necessary for the exterior
facade of the building, not the sign itself. Mr. Slaydon discussed that it is rare for staff to receive
the submission for an unusual sign that staff is not comfortable approving administratively. It
was noted that in many cases, new businesses in the TCO include sign plans in the overall site
plan of the project.
Mr. Beebe said he was conflicted as he has driven past existing EMC signage and while
they can look nice, he was unsure that such signs should be throughout the County. Mr. Beebe
noted that he is pro-business. Mr. Beebe said he felt an EMC would have to be permanently
installed, and the County would have to have a set of guidelines pertaining to EMC signage.
Mr. Slaydon discussed his concern about EMC signage having much greater capability
than what is permitted to be used by the regulations of the ordinance. Mr. Slaydon noted that it is
not uncommon for the existing EMC signage in the County to be out of compliance with both
local and State regulations pertaining to EMCs, which can be hard for zoning to keep up with.
Mr. Subrizi said he was aware of a church within the County that had expressed interest
in installing an EMC.
Mr. Slaydon said yes.
Mr. Subrizi asked if it was only the one business that had expressed interest in an EMC.
Mr. Slaydon said no; he was aware of at least two entities that had expressed interest in
an EMC sign.
Mr. Subrizi said he remembered an entity approaching the Board of Supervisors with a
request for an EMC sign.
Mr. Slaydon added that the high school had also inquired about the placement of an EMC
sign.
Mr. Subrizi asked if there were existing EMCs that were not in compliance with the
regulations.
Mr. Slaydon said yes.
Mr. Subrizi asked why staff were not enforcing the regulations for such signs.
Mr. Slaydon said that staff time is an issue.
Mr. Subrizi discussed the available methods for testing a level of illumination, such as
that from EMCs.
Mr. Slaydon noted that he did not believe there had been any issues with the existing
EMC signs in the County adhering to the regulations for illumination in daytime versus
nighttime.
Mr. Subrizi noted that there are also currently very few EMC signs in the County.
Mr. Slaydon agreed and discussed that the regulations pertaining to electronic fuel
pricing signs were developed using industry standards. The existing illumination requirements
for EMCS were developed using similar research of industry standards.
Mr. Subrizi said he felt that EMCs are more commonly used in other localities.
Mr. Melvin said that he was unsure what the current regulations pertaining to EMC
signage were.
Mr. Dryden reviewed that restriction on EMC signage usage could be put in place, but
that it has to be consistent.
15

Mr. Slaydon and Mr. Dryden discussed whether existing EMC signage would be allowed
to remain in place if a restriction against EMC use was put in place, noting that constitutional
law would need to be referenced.
Mr. Slaydon read from Section 30-61D (7) the County Code the existing regulations for
fire department and rescue squad use of EMC signage as follows:
“(a) Displays shall be limited to community messages that appear or disappear from the
display and remain static with no movement or scrolling. In no case shall the display use
the flash mode of operation.
(b) Each message on the sign shall be displayed for a minimum of one (1) hour; in no
case shall the message be changed more than ten (10) times in a twenty-four (24) hour
period.
(c) The background of the EMC shall remain black or unlit.
(d) Electronic displays shall consist of no more than two (2) colors.
(e) Nighttime illumination shall be limited to nine hundred (900) NITs.
(f) The display may only be used to advertise community messages, time and
temperature, and public service announcements. The owner must register with Amber
Alerts.
(g) Signage shall be turned off between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., unless
there is an emergency situation or an Amber Alert has been issued.
(h) The electrical service lines providing power to such shall be underground.”
Mr. Beebe asked if the existing regulations required an EMC to be on a permanent
foundation.
Mr. Slaydon read a portion of Section 30-61D (7) the County Code, which stated, “Such
signs must be set on a single monument base, shall be landscaped and in character with the
surrounding area and manually lettered bulletin boards may be illuminated with white lights
only.”
Mr. Slaydon added that electronic fuel price signs had similar regulations, reading a
portion of Section 30-61E (3) of the County Code the provisions as follows:
“(a) The electronic display shall be limited to showing the price per gallon, expressed
numerically, for the fuels offered for sale on premise;
(b) No more than one (1) such sign shall be permitted on any fuel center;
(c) No such sign shall have more than three (3) separate panels capable of displaying
information electronically, and each such panel shall be limited to the display of a single
grade of fuel. The total area of the portion of such sign that is capable of electronic
displays shall not exceed fifteen (15) square feet;
(d) The pixel pitch of the electronic display portion of such signs shall be twenty (20)
millimeters or smaller;
(e) Fuel prices shall not be changed more often than three (3) times in any twenty-four
(24) hour period, and scrolling, flashing, blinking or any other type of intermittent
movement or illumination of elements of the electronic display shall be prohibited.
Change sequences shall be accomplished by means of instantaneous re- pixelization;
(f) Electronic displays shall consist of no more than two (2) colors;
(g) Audio speakers on, or electronically connected to, such signs shall not be permitted;
(h) Nighttime illumination shall be limited to one thousand (1000) NIT’s; and,
(i) The electrical service lines providing power to such shall be underground.”
16

Mr. Slaydon noted that the regulations pertaining to EMC signs in the Raphine area were
similar to those for fire departments and rescue squads.
Mr. Beebe asked if the County were to allow all businesses to have EMC signage, would
similar regulations have to be developed that apply to all EMC signs.
Mr. Slaydon said yes; noting that if the Planning Commission wished to do so, a uniform
set of standards could be developed.
Mr. Beebe asked if a regulation pertaining to the maximum height of an EMC sign could
be put in place.
Mr. Slaydon said there was an existing regulation pertaining to the height of signs.
Mr. Beebe asked if such regulations were in the sign ordinance.
Mr. Slaydon said yes, noting the maximum height of 15 feet and maximum size of 60
square feet. It was noted that Mr. Slaydon did not foresee a large number of entities wanting to
swap their existing sign for an EMC, discussing that the use of an EMC was unlikely to result in
higher sales or foot traffic to a store.
Mr. Beebe said he felt that the doors for EMC signage had already been opened, so the
County needed to have standard regulations in place for their broader use.
Mr. Dryden said he thought it would be important to create such standards.
Mr. Melvin asked if Mr. Dryden was stating that the County could not prohibit the use of
EMC signs across the board.
Mr. Dryden clarified that EMCs could be prohibited, but such a ban would have to apply
across the County.
Mr. Melvin asked if existing EMC signs could remain.
Mr. Dryden said no.
Mr. Subrizi asked, in such a situation, how many existing EMC signs would have to be
removed.
Mr. Slaydon said there are three volunteer fire departments with EMC signs.
Mr. Dryden added that gas station EMC signs would also be included.
Mr. Subrizi asked if the EMCs for gastric stations could be treated separately.
Mr. Dryden said likely no, unless a compelling government reason could be identified for
doing so.
Mr. Subrizi mentioned that the EMC signage for gas stations is used to display gas prices.
Mr. Dryden said he did not think such an argument would survive the high standards put
in place by the Supreme Court through case law on the topic of signage. Mr. Dryden discussed
that in the case from Gilbert, Arizona, which had a prohibition on specific sizes of signs as well
as temporary signs, except for certain businesses. The Supreme Court ruled in the Gilbert case
that the prohibition was on a speaker base, by specifying that one type of speaker could have
certain signs, but another type could not. Mr. Dryden added that the case also included rules
against limiting the types of messages or content that could be placed on signs. It was discussed
that the County may still be able to require any EMCs to be part of the Amber Alert network, as
it could be a compelling government reason to do so, though additional research would be
needed. Mr. Dryden summarized that no speaker or speech limitations could be enacted, but
there could be limitations based on geographical boundaries that apply to everyone within said
area. It was discussed that additional research would also be needed to determine if religious
institutions within a geographical region could be allowed to have an EMC sign, while such
institutions outside of a specified region would not.
17

Mr. Melvin asked to confirm that the ability to have an EMC sign could be limited to a
specified geographic area.
Mr. Dryden said yes, as long as such regulation is universally applied to all speaker types
within an area. It was noted that a regulation allowing EMCs within the Raphine area would be
permissible, but the current regulation limiting the use only to gas stations within that
geographical area is problematic. Mr. Dryden said that with the current regulations, the County
would have a hard time justifying not allowing a business to place an EMC sign, even if they did
not meet the existing restrictions.
Mr. Melvin asked if the restrictions in the TCO district pertaining to EMCs were
possible.
Mr. Dryden said there could be an argument for doing so, as long as such restrictions
were applied to everyone within the TCO district.
Mr. Melvin asked if Raphine was in the TCO district.
Mr. Slaydon said no.
Mr. Subrizi said he thought that Routes 11 and 60 were included in the TCO district.
Mr. Dryden said that the entirety of Routes 60 and 11 are not included in the TCO
district.
Mr. Subrizi said that the TCO district could be defined by a geographical area.
Mr. Dryden said yes, and such regulation could be put in place as long as it applied to
everyone within the district.
Mr. Subrizi said he thought the purpose of having the TCO district was to preserve the
historic nature of the area.
Mr. Dryden agreed, noting that the County would have the ability to enact regulations
specific to the TCO district that were different from other areas.
Mr. Beebe asked to confirm that EMCs could be banned for everyone within the TCO
district.
Mr. Dryden said yes but noted he wanted to perform additional research on the
application of such regulation to religious institutions.
Mr. Subrizi asked how the TCO district was defined.
Mr. Slaydon said the TCO consists of the area that is 1000 feet from the centerline of the
road on specified State Routes, such as Route 60 and Route 11.
Mr. Subrizi asked what areas a map of the boundary of the TCO district would contain.
Mr. Slaydon said that 1000 feet from the center line of all of Route 60, Route 11 and
Route 39 to Millard Burke Memorial Hwy would be included.
Mr. Subrizi asked if such a regulation banning EMCs within the TCO district were
enacted, and there was an existing EMC sign in that area, would that EMC sign have to be
removed.
Mr. Dryden said he would have to look closer at such a situation, as an EMC sign may be
considered a prior non-conforming use in that scenario.
Mr. Beebe asked if there was a consensus amongst the Planning Commission regarding
the idea of prohibiting EMC signs in the TCO district and creating uniform regulations for EMC
sign usage outside of the TCO.
Mr. Dryden asked if an existing gas station was within the TCO district.
Mr. Slaydon said the current regulations allow for electronic fuel price signs.
Mr. Dryden said it was his interpretation that the County would not be able to allow an
electronic fuel price sign in the TCO if such a ban were enacted.
18

Mr. Slaydon said that simply driving throughout the Commonwealth, it appears that there
are some localities that do not have any provisions for EMC signage, but most localities seem to
have provisions for electronic fuel price signs.
Mr. Dryden discussed that having a different regulation for EMC use pertaining only to
fuel stations would be limiting the use on a speaker basis, which conflicts with the Supreme
Court ruling. However, there may be the possibility of creating a geographical boundary that
would encompass all fuel stations in the County. Mr. Dryden said that as there is an existing fuel
price EMC sign in the TCO district, the County would not be able to ban EMCs from the TCO
district at the present time.
Mr. Slaydon noted there were multiple fuel price EMC signs in the TCO district.
Mr. Dryden said that staff could discuss if there was a way to accomplish such regulation
to limit the use of EMCs in the TCO district.
Mr. Slaydon said that staff had not yet discussed the potential zoning text amendment for
EMC signage with the TCO Board but would plan to do so at an upcoming TCO Board meeting.
Mr. Beebe said the consensus seemed to be that the TCO districts should be kept free
from EMC signage as much as possible, and asked staff to develop language that could
accomplish such request while accommodating fuel price EMCs. Additionally, a set of standards
pertaining to EMC signs could be developed for the remainder of the County.
Mr. Melvin asked if a fuel sign EMC could be added as a use by special exception.
Mr. Dryden said his interpretation was that such accommodation could not be made for a
specific speaker, such as fuel stations, but additional research could be done.
Mr. Beebe asked staff to work towards the goal of protecting the TCO districts and
developing EMC regulations for the remainder of the County.
Mr. Dryden asked if there were religious institutions located within the TCO district.
Mr. Slaydon said yes.
Mr. Dryden said staff would have to do additional research on the religious institution
aspect of the EMC sign regulations as well. It was noted that a geographical region could be
developed that did not include all of Route 60 and Route 11.
Mr. Whitmore discussed that businesses would likely make up the majority of
applications for EMC signage.
Mr. Dryden noted the high threshold for having a compelling government interest in
developing standards such as those for EMC signage, stating that the hassle associated with
manually changing the price on a gas sign would not be considered a compelling government
interest.
Mr. Beebe asked if staff had enough direction from the Planning Commission to go off.
Mr. Dryden said he understood the Planning Commission’s desired outcomes of potential
EMC signage regulations.
Mr. Melvin asked staff to develop language that made sense with the Supreme Court
restrictions and the desired outcome.
Mr. Slaydon said that staff understood the untended direction of the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Sandridge asked how the former Aunt Sarah’s Pancake House had an electronic sign.
Mr. Slaydon said he was unsure.
Mr. Sandridge said the electronic sign is not associated with a gas station but has been in
that location for a long time.
Mr. Slaydon said the sign may have predated the County’s EMC sign regulations.
19

Mr. Sandridge said he believed that the electronic sign was put in place when the former
Aunt Sarah’s Pancake House first opened, noting that the nearby hotel seems to still be utilizing
the ecteronic sign.
Mr. Slaydon stated that the referenced electronic sign is planned to be removed and
replaced with an electronic fuel sign.
* * * * *
Mr. Beebe asked if there were any further matters of discussion.
Mr. Slaydon reviewed that there had been discussion at a recent Community
Development Committee meeting about potentially reviewing the current list of permitted uses
and uses by special exception in the General Business (B-1) zoning district. Mr. Slaydon handed
out a list of the current uses by special exception in the General Business (B-1) zoning district.
The review would be to determine if each use in the current list belongs as a use by special
exception. Mr. Slaydon explained that the impetus for the review was the recent special
exception application for a storage business in the B-1 zoning district, during which a Board of
Supervisors member asked why the use required a special exception.
Mr. Slaydon discussed that uses which require a special exception permit within a zoning
district are categorized as such because they have been deemed to have more potential for
adverse impacts on the surrounding area. Mr. Slaydon said he felt strongly that storage
businesses should remain as a use by special exception, as it remained a mechanism to help
oversee the number of storage businesses that are located within the zoning district. It was noted
that another point to consider was that uses such as a storage business would not produce lodging
tax, sales tax, or meals tax.
Mr. Slaydon discussed that the printed list of current uses by special exception in the B-1
zoning district, which was distributed to the Commissioners, contained blanks next to each item
on the list. Mr. Slaydon asked Planning Commissioners to evaluate each item on the list and
assign a score of one through five; one indicating the use should remain as a special exception
and five indicating the use should be considered for reclassification as a permitted use in the B-1
zoning district.
Mr. Slaydon noted that the score sheet would also be distributed to the members of the
Community Development Committee to obtain their feedback. Mr. Slaydon noted that he felt
there were other zoning text amendments that would take priority prior to taking action on the
uses of the B-1 zoning district. It was reviewed that in the previous discussion with the
Community Development Committee regarding a review of the uses permitted in the B-1 zoning
district, contractor’s equipment yards and storage facilities were highlighted as uses that could
potentially be recategorized. Mr. Slaydon said that he could see merit to continuing to require a
special exception permit for both of the uses provided as examples.
Mr. Slaydon said the Planning Commission could review the list and return their
feedback at a later time.
Mr. Melvin asked to clarify that all of the uses seen on the list currently require a special
exception permit.
Mr. Slaydon said yes and noted that some of the language of the list of uses was
antiquated. An example was given of a billiard parlor.
Mr. Beebe asked if there was any additional discussion.

20

Mr. Subrizi said he would like the Planning Commission to discuss regulations pertaining
to data centers, noting that he felt the County was behind on enacting regulations pertaining to
data centers given their proliferation in other areas of the state. Mr. Subrizi noted that the Solar
Ordinance took two years to develop.
Mr. Slaydon said he felt that developing regulations pertaining to data centers could be a
shorter process than the solar ordinance. Mr. Slaydon reviewed that at the previous Board of
Supervisors meeting, Supervisor Brown stated that she would like the Supervisors to review
regulations pertaining to data centers prior to having an application for such facility. The Board
of Supervisors instructed the Community Development Committee to discuss the potential for
developing regulations for data centers and provide information from their discussion to the
Board.
Mr. Beebe asked if such discussion would be held at a future Community Development
Committee.
Mr. Slaydon said yes.
Mr. Subrizi said there were two Planning Commission members present that were not on
the Community Development Committee, and he would like to hear their opinions on the matter.
Mr. Melvin said he did not know enough about the use of a data center and what utilities
would be required for such use. It was noted that the Maury Service Authority has struggled to
keep up with the processing of water at the volume that is currently needed. Mr. Melvin said that
such a factor could be prohibitive for the location of a data center within the County.
Additionally, it was discussed that a data center may not be able to withdraw water from the river
in its current impaired state. Mr. Melvin said that with water being such an issue in the County,
he would not foresee a data center project being approved.
Mr. Subrizi said water usage was only one factor, noting that energy usage and noise
production were also common issues seen with data centers. It was discussed that a closed loop
system and energy generation had been raised as potential solutions for data centers to overcome
water withdrawal and energy usage issues. Mr. Subrizi said he could foresee the occurrence of
data centers expanding quickly, and he hoped the County would be prepared for such a scenario.
It was discussed that regulations pertaining to data centers could be easier than those developed
for solar facilities, but Mr. Subrizi said he could foresee potential complications.
Mr. Sandridge said that Virginia has one of the largest number of data centers compared
to other states.
Mr. Subrizi said most of the existing data centers in the state are located in northern
Virginia but noted that data center projects are starting to make their way throughout the state.
Mr. Sandridge said that Dominion Energy had recently made comments regarding its
ability to provide power to data centers. Mr. Sandridge said he echoed similar concerns to Mr.
Subrizi regarding data centers.
Mr. Beebe agreed that the County should be prepared prior to a potential application for a
data center.
Mr. Subrizi said he thought there could be an argument for placing a moratorium on data
centers until regulations are developed.
Mr. Beebe said there would need to be a discussion held regarding whether a moratorium
would be imposed, or an ordinance developed.
Mr. Subrizi said a committee could be assembled, as was done for the Solar Ordinance.
Mr. Beebe suggested additional discussions be held about how potential regulations for
data centers could be approached.
21

Mr. Subrizi said that the Community Development Committee does not often have the
opinions of all Planning Commission members on a topic of discussion, which could be useful.
Mr. Beebe said that in addition to the previously mentioned concerns, the Comprehensive
Plan would also have to be reviewed to determine if a project would fit with the goals set forth
by the plan.
Mr. Beebe suggested continuing the discussion at the next Community Development
Committee meeting.
With no additional discussion, Mr. Sandridge made a motion to adjourn the meeting at
8:38 pm.
Mr. Melvin seconded the motion.
The motion was approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________________
Christopher T. Slaydon
Secretary

22

AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION, HELD AT THE ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
ON WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 14, 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. 30-40B (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. 30-45M
(Uses Permitted by Special Exception in the Flood Hazard District FH-1) of the Code to modify the regulations pertaining to
manufactured homes.

SUBMITTED BY:

Chris Slaydon - Director of Community Development

DATE:

09/30/2026

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
During the 2026 Session of the Virginia General Assembly, House Bill 655 was adopted
and subsequently signed into law by the Governor. The legislation became effective on
July 1, 2026, and amended the Code of Virginia regarding local regulation of
manufactured homes.
In addition to updates to the Manufactured Home Ordinance (County Code Section 3062) that were previously reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the
Board of Supervisors at their September 28, 2026 meeting, further Sections of the Code
require updating in order to conform with the State Law amendment.
The proposed draft zoning text amendment includes updates to Chapter 30, Article VI
(Uses in Districts) of the County Code. The proposed changes include sections such as
the uses in various districts and regulations associated with the Flood Hazard District.
At its August 12, 2026 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the drafted zoning
text amendment and instructed staff to take the matter to public hearing at a future
meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Consider the information provided, receive public comments and if there is a consensus
of the Commission, make a motion recommending approval of the proposed zoning text
amendment to the Board of Supervisors.
ATTACHMENTS
Proposed amendments to Chapter 30, Article VI

County of Rockbridge
Office of Community Development
CHRIS SLAYDON
Director of Community Development
[email protected]

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

PLANNING AND
ZONING
540-464-9662
GEOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION SYSTEM
540-464-9656

ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Notice is hereby given per Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia and Chapter 30, Article VIII, Sections 3077(3)(4) and (9) of the Rockbridge County Code (the Code) that the following public hearings will be held by
the Rockbridge County Planning Commission on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, at or after 7:00 p.m. in the
Board of Supervisors Meeting Room in the County Administration Building, 150 South Main Street, Lexington,
Virginia 24450 to consider the following applications:
1. 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. 3042B (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).
2. 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).
Information on these applications are available in the Rockbridge County Office of Community Development,
150 South Main Street, Lexington, Virginia, by phone at 540-464-9662 or by email at
[email protected]
By: Chris Slaydon
Director of Community Development
1 week only, to replace previous submission
(October 7, 2026)

ARTICLE VI. USES IN DISTRICTS
***********
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.
(Amended by Ord. of 5-27-08; Amended by Ord. of 10-26-20)
B.
Permitted Uses. In the R-1 District, structures to be erected or land to be used,
shall be for one (1) or more of the following uses:
***********
(10)

Manufactured homes nineteen (19) feet or greater as provided in Article
VII.

***********
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.
B.

Permitted Uses:

***********
(12)

Manufactured homes nineteen (19) feet or greater in width as provided in Article
VII.

***********
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.
B.
permitted:

Permitted Uses. Within the General Business District B-l, the following uses are

***********
(4)

One (1) or two (2) family dwellings and manufactured homes meeting the
area and setback requirements of the R-2 District if public water and sewer
are available or the R-1 District if on a private drainfield and well or
public water. Additionally, manufactured homes must adhere to the
requirements for placement of a manufactured home in the Residential
zoning districts, as set forth in Chapter 30, Article VII.

***********
C.
605.03 Special Exceptions. In General Business, special exceptions may be
granted for one (1) or more of the following uses:
***********
(13)

Manufactured home in accordance with the special provisions in Article
VII

***********
Sec. 30-45. Flood Hazard District - FH-1.
***********

L.
Permitted Uses. In the Flood way District the following uses and activities are permitted
provided that they are in compliance with the provisions of the underlying district and are not
prohibited by any other Ordinance, and provided that they do not require structures, fill, or
storage of materials and equipment:
(1)
Agricultural uses such as general farming, pasture, grazing, outdoor plant
nurseries, horticulture, truck farming, forestry, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting.
(2)
Public and private recreational uses and activities such as parks, day camps,
picnic grounds, golf courses, boat launching and swimming areas, hiking, and horseback
riding trails, wildlife and nature preserves, game farms, fish hatcheries, trap and skeet
game ranges, and hunting and fishing areas.
(3)
Accessory residential uses such as yard areas, gardens, play areas, and pervious
loading areas.
(4)
Accessory industrial and commercial uses such as yard areas, pervious parking
and loading areas, airport land strips, etc.
M.
Uses Permitted by Special Exception. The following uses and activities may be
permitted by special exception provided that they are in compliance with the provisions of the
underlying district and are not prohibited by this or any other Ordinance:
(1)
Structures except for manufactured homes accessory to the uses and activities in
Section (AL) above.
***********

AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA PLANNING
COMMISSION, HELD AT THE ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 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 definitions of “Public Utility Service, Major” and “Public
Utility Service, Minor.”

SUBMITTED BY:

Chris Slaydon - Director of Community Development

DATE:

October 7, 2026

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
House Bill 711, which was approved by the Governor on April 22, 2026, and took effect
on July 1, 2026, imposed restrictions on the local regulation of solar facilities.
In response to the changes in State law, staff drafted amendments to County Code
Chapter 30, Article VII, Section 30-72 (Solar Facilities) to comply with updated
regulations. Additionally, staff proposed modifications to the definitions of “Public Utility
Service, major” and “Public Utility Service, minor” in County Code Chapter 30, Article III,
Section 30-12, to clarify the applicability of the Solar Ordinance to ground mounted
facilities of one megawatt or more, in coordination with the threshold set forth by House
Bill 711.
At its September 28, 2026 meeting, the Board of Supervisors reviewed and approved
the amendments to the Solar facilities regulations in Chapter 30, Article VII, Section 3072, as recommended by the Planning Commission. This action did not extend to the
proposed amendments to the Public Utility definitions.
The Planning Commission previously reviewed the proposed modifications to the
existing definitions of “Public Utility Service, major” and “Public Utility Service, minor” at
their August 12, 2026 meeting, in coordination with the proposed amendments to the
Solar Facilities Section of the County Code. However, neither the notice of public
hearing associated with the Planning Commission’s August 12, 2026 public hearing, nor
the notice associated with the Board of Supervisors September 28, 2026 public hearing,
extended to include the drafted changes to the definitions as an addition to the
modifications to the Solar Facilities Section. Therefore, the Board of Supervisors acted
only on the proposed amendments to the Solar Facilities Section of the Code and did
not act on the proposed modifications to the Public Utility Services definitions.
The purpose of this agenda item and public hearing is to ensure the review of the
proposed amendments to the Public Utility Services definitions meets the notice
requirements.

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:
Draft amendment to County Code Chapter 30, Article III, Section 30-12 (Specific
Definitions)

County of Rockbridge
Office of Community Development
CHRIS SLAYDON
Director of Community Development
[email protected]

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

PLANNING AND
ZONING
540-464-9662
GEOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION SYSTEM
540-464-9656

ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Notice is hereby given per Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia and Chapter 30, Article VIII, Sections 3077(3)(4) and (9) of the Rockbridge County Code (the Code) that the following public hearings will be held by
the Rockbridge County Planning Commission on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, at or after 7:00 p.m. in the
Board of Supervisors Meeting Room in the County Administration Building, 150 South Main Street, Lexington,
Virginia 24450 to consider the following applications:
1. 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. 3042B (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).
2. 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).
Information on these applications are available in the Rockbridge County Office of Community Development,
150 South Main Street, Lexington, Virginia, by phone at 540-464-9662 or by email at
[email protected]
By: Chris Slaydon
Director of Community Development
1 week only, to replace previous submission
(October 7, 2026)

ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY CODE
Chapter 30
ZONING ORDINANCE
**********
ARTICLE III. DEFINITIONS
**********
Sec. 30-12. Specific definitions.
**********
“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 that are one (1) megawatt or larger with a panel zone area of onequarter (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.
(Amended by Ord. of 10-27-14; Amended by Ord. of 2-23-26)
“Public Utility Service, minor” means service which is necessary to support development within
the immediate vicinity and involves only minor structures. Included in this use are small
facilities such as transformers, relay and booster devices, well, water, sewer pump stations,
ground mounted solar energy projects that are less than one (1) megawatt with a panel zone area
of less than one-quarter (0.25) acre, and similar facilities.
(Added by Ord. of 2-23-26)
**********

AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA PLANNING
COMMISSION, HELD AT THE ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2026
AGENDA ITEM:

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

SUBMITTED BY:

Chris Slaydon, Director of Community Development

DATE:

October 7, 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 ADU’s.
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 ZTA’s -- Accessory Dwelling Unit – Off Street Parking and Definition
Virginia Acts of Assembly 2026, Chapter 895 - Amendment related to ADUs

1

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.

Definition that could be utilized
"Accessory Living Unit" means a secondary dwelling unit established in conjunction with a singlefamily dwelling that provides complete living facilities for one or more persons.

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

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.

AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION, HELD AT THE ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
ON WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 14, 2026
AGENDA ITEM:

Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) Discussion – (b.) Data Centers

SUBMITTED BY:

Chris Slaydon - Director of Community Development

DATE:

October 6, 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.”
Under current ordinance, Public Utility Service, major 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 special exception in the C-1, A-1, 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.
Staff have researched other definitions for data centers in the Commonwealth;
staff have developed the following data center 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.
In addition to the Community Development Committee suggestion for the
Planning Commission to explore potential modifications to the existing
ordinance, the Committee discussed the benefits of developing an
ordinance pertaining to Data Centers in the future.

RECOMMENDATION
Consider the information provided, discuss the existing ordinance, proposed definition,
and the use in the various zoning districts. If there is a consensus of the Commission,
make a motion to instruct staff to advertise for public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
None