Planning Commission - Work Session

Planning Commission - Work Session Agenda Thursday, September 25, 2025 at 9:00 AM Economic Development Center, Council Meeting Room 803 South Main Street, Culpeper Page 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. CALL OF ROLL 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5.1 Minutes from September 16, 2025 3-4 9-16-2025 PC Reg minutes.pdf 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6.1 Town Ordinance Amendment Case O-2025-002 Work Session 5 - 32 Staff will discuss with the Commission the property owner requested changes to their proposed zoning designations in the draft UDO. 1. E Spencer Street Change Request.pdf 2. E Spencer Street Maps.pdf 3. 50-1D Change Request.pdf 4. 50-1D Maps.pdf 5. Wolford Street Change Request.pdf 6. Wolford Street Maps.pdf 7. 226 W Scanlon Street Change Request.pdf Page 1 of 32  8. 226 W Scanlon Street Maps.pdf 9. 41-100A Change Request.pdf 10. 41-100A Maps.pdf Clerk's note: The below attachment added on 9/23/2025 at 9:29am 9-22-2025 letter to Planning Commission about UDO.pdf 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS 7.1 Comprehensive Plan Update Introduction 8. OTHER BUSINESS 8.1 Initiation of a Text Amendment to Town Code Chapter 27 to provide a mechanism for consideration of a request for a reasonable accommodation in accordance with provisions of state and federal fair housing laws or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.), as applicable. 9. FOLLOW-UP ITEMS 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR DISCUSSION 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION 12. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 32  Minutes Town of Culpeper Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 16, 2025 803 S. Main St., Economic Development Center, Culpeper, VA 22701 Call to Order Mr. Flanagan called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Call of Roll Members Present: John Cerio Ian Fitzsimmons John Flanagan Janie Schmidt Members Absent: James Clements Staff Present: Andrew Hopewell, Planning and Community Development Director Kelli Carmichael, Planning and Zoning Assistant Approval of Agenda Motion: By Ms. Schmidt to approve the agenda as presented Seconded: By Mr. Cerio Vote: Approved 4-0, 1 absent Mr. Cerio noted that the Election of Officers would typically be held at the September regular meeting, however due to Mr. Clements’ absence, this should be held at next week’s work session. Mr. Flanagan agreed. Approval of Minutes Motion: By Mr. Fitzsimmons to approve the minutes as presented Seconded: By Ms. Schmidt Vote: Approved 4-0, 1 absent Comments and Correspondence from Citizens, Visitors and Delegations in the Audience on Items Not Scheduled for Public Hearing. None. Unfinished Business None. New Business VAR-5938-2025 for Gary & Melissa Deal: Mr. Hopewell presented the request for a variance at Tax Parcel Number 40Q-1-21 (1004 Ridgemere Lane) to Section 27-52.d.5 of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum rear yard. The variance would allow the property Planning Commission Regular Meeting 1 Minutes – September 16, 2025 Page 3 of 32 owner to construct an addition to the rear of the existing single family dwelling. Discussion ensued regarding setbacks and the criteria for the granting of a variance. Motion: By Mr. Fitzsimmons to forward to the Board of Zoning Appeals without a recommendation. Seconded: By Mr. Cerio Vote: Approved 4-0, 1 absent VAR-5957-2025 for Jefferson Homebuilders, Inc.: Mr. Hopewell presented a request for a variance at Tax Parcel Number 41-115 (15487 Braggs Corner Road) to Section 27-273.a of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum side year that was shown on an approved site plan. The variance would allow the two (2) previously constructed storage buildings to remain on the property. Discussion ensued regarding the nature and use of the buildings as well as potential safety risks due to their proximity to the railroad. Motion: By Mr. Fitzsimmons to forward to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation for denial. Seconded: By Ms. Schmidt Vote: Failed 2-2, 1 absent Other Business None. Follow Up Items None. Planning Director Discussion Mr. Hopewell provided an update on Town Council’s decision to defer action on the UDO. Additionally, he noted the deadline for property owner zoning change requests was set by Town Council for noon on Thursday, September 18, 2025. The property owner zoning change requests that have been received prior to the deadline will be presented at next week’s work session. Planning Commissioner Discussion None. Adjournment - The meeting adjourned at 6:42 pm. _______________________ ______________________________ Date Chairman Planning Commission Regular Meeting 2 Minutes – September 16, 2025 Page 4 of 32 Page 5 of 32 Page 6 of 32 Page 7 of 32 Page 8 of 32 Page 9 of 32 Page 10 of 32 September 16, 2025 Dear Planning Commission, Mr. Hopewell, and Town Council members, First, let us say that we have no intention of redeveloping the lot at 226 W Scanlon Street, Tax Map 41/A21/K1/A. Neither are we aware of any plans for the Baptist Church to be redeveloped. As pointed out in letters to the Town, we have been compatible neighbors of the church since 1969. Currently the church has residential zoning. There is now a proposed zoning change that applies to the entire block illustrated below, with the exclusion of the lot on the corner of W Scanlon Street and Blue Ridge Avenue. Church Kelsey The proposed zoning would change the Baptist Church property to NX zoning. If NX zoning is approved for the property currently owned by the Culpeper Baptist Church, we request an extension of the rezoning to the lot at 226 W Scanlon Street. If the Church zoning remains residential our lot should have residential zoning too. If the surrounding block is rezoned our lot needs to be rezoned to the same zoning as the rest of the block. The Kelsey lot is approximately 0.9 acre, and the surrounding acreage owned by Culpeper Baptist Church contains 4.4 acres. As shown in the illustrations, the proposed rezoning applies to 83% of the block. It is unreasonable to change the zoning of most of the block, leaving this 17% non- compatible with the majority of the block. As stated in the Planning Commission public hearing, we enjoy having the church as our neighbor. It is already a commercial use. The proposed zoning would allow redevelopment of all or part of the church property for a multitude of commercial uses that would be allowed by right. Once the proposed zoning change is approved by the Town, the surrounding neighbors would have no control over additional development or redevelopment of the site. Page 11 of 32 In comments from the public and our neighbors have expressed the desire for the Kelsey lot to remain single-family residential. The neighbors that are speaking against the rezoning of the Kelsey lot with the church lot are not adjacent and surrounded by the church land as we are. They do not appreciate how the rezoning of the church could impact the neighborhood but would have the greatest impact on our lot. We are not requesting redevelopment of the site. We recently had the roof replaced and intend to continue the current use as a single-family residence. In letters to the Town, our neighbors have provided photographs and/or comments about their view. Our view is of the church property to the north and west, and single-family houses to the south and east. Our elevations is such that we overlook multiple parking lots and traffic at pick-up and drop- off times. We have no problems with this and the church’s use of the property as a place of worship and a school, and we enjoy and appreciate the farmers’ market. Our concern is that if the church is rezoned and decides to expand further or sell to a developer, that view and our surroundings would drastically change. This could have a profound impact on its market value. We also do not wish to see the residential character of the neighborhood change. We are not seeking redevelopment, but in the long term, if the church property were ever redeveloped, we are then left with a very limited residential zoning. We are seeking to protect our interests if the church property were redeveloped as would be allowed by the proposed NX zoning. We strongly believe that our zoning should be compatible with the surrounding land on the same block. If the Baptist Church property is rezoned, and the Kelsey lot isn’t, this would leave us with a low-density residential zoning non-compliant with the adjacent commercial use and commercial zoning of 83% of the lot that we share with the church. Again, there are no plans to redevelop the Kelsey lot, but we strongly urge approval of a zoning that is compatible with the surrounding land. We request that the Kelsey lot be included in the proposed NX zoning, if approved, as it is the only portion of that block excluded from the plan. Thank you for your time and consideration to this matter. Respectfully, Mary Ann Kelsey Page Kelsey Wessel Lynn Kelsey Ben Kelsey Page 12 of 32 Page 13 of 32 Page 14 of 32 Page 15 of 32 Page 16 of 32 Page 17 of 32 Page 18 of 32 Page 19 of 32 Page 20 of 32 Page 21 of 32 Page 22 of 32 Page 23 of 32 Page 24 of 32 Page 25 of 32 Page 26 of 32 Page 27 of 32 Page 28 of 32 Page 29 of 32 Page 30 of 32  Zeuswyn Properties LLC 18048 Birmingham Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 September 22, 2025 To: Members of the Town of Culpeper Planning Commission Andrew Hopewell, Town of Culpeper Planning Director My wife and I, along with our daughters, are the owners of Parcel 50-1D which is at the Route 29 business/29 bypass intersection in the southwest part of town. This parcel is located immediately adjoining the interchange acceleration lane exiting Madison Road onto Hwy. 29 southbound, and it consists of approximately 21 acres. There are more than two acres of roadway, leaving about 19 acres. This is not the entire 65 acre property extending from the interchange all the way to the lake. I know you are considering how to zone our parcel. I appreciate the Town Council sending this back to the Planning Commission for further study. I'm asking you to recommend that the parcel be zoned NX so the zoning will agree with the Town’s comprehensive plan. The current proposal is for a zoning designation of Rural Residential (RR), but the Future Land Use plan has the property designated for General Commercial Mixed Uses. A stated goal of the proposed unified development ordinance (UDO) is that “the zoning ordinance should reinforce the vision and goals of the town's comprehensive plan”, so a change to RR would not meet the stated goal of the UDO. There are several points I'd like to bring to your attention to consider for your recommendation to the town council. When the parcel was brought into the town during the 2012 boundary line adjustment, it was given a zoning designation of RE (1 acre minimum lot size) even though all of the surrounding property had much denser zoning ranging from 10,000 square foot minimum lot size to very high density multifamily and commercial uses. When I pointed this out to town government at the time, I was told that even though the property was singled out for lower zoning, “don't worry about it because the future land use is mixed-use commercial”. But, when the zoning doesn't match the future land use plan companies that would like to build an office park or big box type of business are not willing to invest their resources because the property will have to be rezoned. The process takes years to complete, the outcome is uncertain, and it is very expensive. I have been told this several times by real estate acquisition specialists who have identified our property for clients who would like to build in Culpeper, and I believe the improper zoning is affecting economic development for the town. I’ve found 69 properties in the draft UDO totaling more than 133 acres that are proposed to be rezoned from residential uses to NX, yet our property is proposed for “rural large lots”. These properties range in size from.04 acres to 19 acres, which is about the same size as our parcel. The current use of most of these parcels is residential. Many are older single family homes. It appears that the parcels are being rezoned 1) because the current use is not residential, or 2) so that zoning will be in place for higher density redevelopment (which is also a stated goal of the UDO). Some of the larger parcels proposed to be changed from residential to NX zoning are publicly owned school properties. Some are privately owned church properties that may also have schools on them. It seems the assumption is that the present use will continue indefinitely, but that might not be the case. As an example, three schools (the elementary school, the “old high school, and the “new” high school) that I attended in Blacksburg all Page 31 of 32 became obsolete and were sold by Montgomery County for redevelopment. These properties are currently being used or are planned for a variety of residential and commercial uses. Let me be clear: I support every one of the proposed zoning changes to the 69 properties, because they make sense and proper zoning will be in place to match the future land use plan for those properties. The draft Ordinance Amendment, introduced September 9th, 2025 and intended to be adopted by the Town Council October 14th, 2025, states that “The new zoning map has been developed by Staff and the Planning Commission with continuous feedback from the public and reflects an understanding that the Town is approaching 100% of build out and the demand for redevelopment should be encouraged in areas designated for such development in the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use map, all in an effort to preserve existing neighborhoods”. I’m concerned about the Town encouraging large lot residential development on property located at the intersection of major vehicle arteries (which is best suited for uses such as hospital expansion or offices or big box development) while at the same time changing zoning to encourage infill redevelopment in residential areas because we are approaching 100% build out. It seems that zoning our property for large residential lots will put the town in the same situation when it runs out of room again, and there will be a need to redevelop the property. The Future Land Use plan recognizes and avoids this situation. The same draft Ordinance Amendment, introduced September 9th, 2025, leads off with this: “WHEREAS, on February 13th, 2025, the Town Council of Culpeper VA, (“Council”), adopted a resolution initiating amendments to the existing Town of Culpeper Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances; the primary purpose of the planned ordinance amendments was to implement the Town of Culpeper’s 2018 comprehensive plan”. Further in the same document it states “WHEREAS, the Council finds that the “Culpeper UDO Complete Draft August 2025”, implements the 2018 Town of Culpeper Comprehensive Plan and achieves the purposes of zoning as set forth in Virginia code...” Page 5 of the UDO draft (section 27-1.10.6) titled “COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY” states: A. Pursuant to the Code of Virginia, § 15.2-2284, this UDO is intended to implement the vision, goals, strategies, and maps of the town's comprehensive plan and is deemed to be consistent and in accordance with the adopted comprehensive plan. B. Any amendments to or actions pursuant to this UDO should be consistent with the comprehensive plan. C. An amendment to the text of this UDO is deemed consistent with and in accordance with the comprehensive plan if it complies with the vision, goals, strategies, and maps set forth in the comprehensive plan. An amendment to the zoning map is consistent with the comprehensive plan if it complies with the vision, goals, strategies, and maps set forth in the comprehensive plan. It's clear that the UDO is intended to be consistent with the town's comprehensive plan. It’s also clear that the proposed zoning for parcel 50 -1D is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Please take this into consideration when you make your zoning recommendation to the Council. Thank you. Sincerely, Al Caldwell Member, Zeuswyn Properties LLC Page 32 of 32