Orange County Supervisors approved the new technology zoning district last Tuesday. The planning commission reviewed the entire zoning ordinance overhaul timeline two days later.
The new technology zoning district was approved by supervisors 5-0 on a 4-0 recommendation by the planning commission. The district is part of a larger overhaul of the county’s zoning ordinance, something commissioners say started not when The Berkley Group was retained this spring, but much earlier.
According to a timeline presented by Orange County Director of Development Services Michelle Mixell, AICP, CNU-A, the ordinance rewrite began during a board of supervisors retreat in January 2024 during which time supervisors agreed the ordinance needed to be rewritten and/or adjusted to be simpler, less subjective and to close hidden pathways. In May 2024, the planning commission voted to initiate a text amendment to address by-right limits “as a matter of protecting taxpayers and good zoning practice.” This included looking at the policies of adjacent counties. In October, the planning commission voted 4-1 to recommend continuing the county practice of a minimum 2 acre lot size in agriculture and including a new regulation restricting subdivisions to four every 10 years, similar to Madison County.
Orange County used to have timed subdivision regulations which limited agricultural landowners to one division every four years. The ordinance was adopted in 2008 on a 3-2 vote, but was tossed in 2012 following a lawsuit that ruled it a violation of the state’s Dillon Rule. Then substitute judge Paul Peatross ruled that the Virginia Assembly had not granted localities the authority to base a subdivision ordinance on timed phasing, voiding the policy and securing a victory for Diane and Jimmy Strong, residents who had plans to develop a 65-lot subdivision in Barboursville. It’s unknown what authority localities now have, but Culpeper also utilizes a timed division, limiting divisions to two every five years.
Following the planning commission’s October meeting, the board of supervisors suggested two agricultural districts–A1 and A2, as well as rural residential and technology districts. In November, the planning commission began drafting the districts. Two-person committees were assigned to each district with a different two-person review team. Once the full planning commission agreed, they were to be sent to the board of supervisors for comments before being adjusted by the commission according to the comments and reviewed and approved by the commission for the board to discuss.
In January, the board of supervisors retained the Berkley Group to assist in the work with anticipated completion taking approximately 12-18 months.
“They began conducting a diagnostic of the current ordinance and drafting a new ordinance [with the board] wanting clarity, clear processes and a land use balance,” Mixell said.
In March, the Berkley Group hosted two separate focus groups of stakeholders–developers and agriculture/agritourism.
“During that process, concerns were raised about larger lot sizes and cluster subdivision being too restrictive,” Mixell said, noting that each meeting was approximately 90 minutes long.
The planning commission focused on making the ordinance less restrictive, utilizing performance standards with draft matrices of uses to simplify the process. The commission then submitted those drafts to the supervisors.
A joint board of supervisors and planning commission work session was held March 25, followed by the board providing comments on the planning commission drafts in April. Those comments were incorporated by the commission into revisions of the draft ordinances.
In June, the board redefined a list of tasks and deliverables for the Berkley Group. The supervisors also conducted eight work sessions between April and October focusing on various pieces of the ordinance.
According to Mixell, work will start again in the new year.
District 1 Commissioner and supervisor-elect Jason Capelle said the next parts are what really needs to be focused on for those who want to keep Orange County rural. He said currently there is no limit to how many times agriculturally-zoned land can be divided.
“The reality is we are the only county that doesn’t have restrictions on this,” Capelle said. “Every other county does [and] I don’t think anyone is going to argue that adjacent counties’ property values are less than ours.”
He also took issue with comments that the supervisors haven’t been involved in the process. Capelle said every document, all of which are on the county’s website, include supervisor comments. He said the idea of 10 acre minimum lot sizes came from the supervisors, not the planning commission. He said the drafts have been at the board level since April.
“There’s an idea that the planning commission didn’t respond to comments and didn’t listen to the public,” Capelle said. “The [draft] ordinance reflects the stakeholder input. The only thing they’ve complained about is narrow areas where we haven’t done exactly what they wanted.
“We have problems,” he added. “All agricultural land is at risk. We’re trying to fix it. Other groups of people are trying to keep us from fixing it.”
Capelle said he’s talked to thousands of people during his 15 years on the planning commission and previous years on the board of zoning appeals and everyone mentions rural. He said many of the county’s policies allow the exact opposite of rural, noting the county loses money and taxes increase when residential growth increases, putting additional strain on resources such as schools and emergency services.
“In almost every case, more developed counties have higher taxes,” Capelle said. “Lower taxes are almost never an outcome of growth.”
Rhoadesville resident Troy Gooch agreed. He said in 1994 Loudoun County only had four high schools; now it has 17.
“That’s what we’re looking at,” Gooch said. “This looks like Loudoun when I moved up there.”
Capelle noted that Loudoun County has split zoning, with the eastern more developed side having different regulations than the western less developed side.
“Orange County is like that [with a more developed end],” he said. “Not a single [Loudoun] high school was built because of data centers.”
Stella Bradford of Barboursville encouraged a deeper look at a sliding scale for agricultural-zoned land divisions, with large properties being divided a certain amount of times different than smaller properties being divided. She also questioned if data centers could be defined separately from a technology school, both of which are included in the new technology district, the school byright, the data center by special use permit.
Charles Fincham said the county needs a champion to lead folks in controlling growth.
Former supervisor Zack Burkett said Napa Valley doesn’t have a development problem because the rural land is more valuable.
“It’s too valuable to put houses on,” he said. “That’s part of the solution that hasn’t been mentioned.”
Information regarding the ongoing zoning ordinance overhaul can be found online at https://orangecountyva.gov/1181/ZTA-25-01-Zoning-Ordinance-Overhaul.
