Planning staff presented three test scenarios on Oct. 2 to show how the proposed zoning rewrite would play out on representative parcels in Leesburg’s RM (residential-medium), MU (mixed use) and IC (innovation center) districts.

Mr. Watkins of the Department of Community Development led the test-case presentation, using a four-acre block in Lowenbach (RM), the Village at Leesburg (MU), and the Leagate land bay (IC) to illustrate outcomes under the draft ordinance.

Why it matters: the proposed rewrite intends to implement Legacy Leesburg policy calling for “small-scale, context-sensitive infill” and a broader range of housing types. Commissioners used the test cases to assess whether dimensional standards, open-space and stormwater requirements, and mixed-use ratios will practically yield the housing and development patterns the town plan envisions.

Key findings and staff proposals
- RM district (example: older subdivisions such as Lowenbach): staff found that applying new requirements (10% stormwater area, 10% open space/amenity, 20% 20-year tree canopy) reduces developable land and can prevent reaching higher densities. To better match intended outcomes, staff proposed increasing single-family attached density from 8 to 10 dwelling units per acre and reducing minimum lot widths (single-family detached from 65 to 55 feet, later discussed and adjusted toward 50 feet in the meeting). Staff also proposed smaller side and rear setbacks, a required garage-face setback to accommodate parking, and allowing two dwelling types on a block with one type per block face.
- MU district (example: Village at Leesburg): staff tested the current mixed-use ratio (2,500 square feet of nonresidential per residential unit) and concluded the draft ratio is unrealistic for practical redevelopment. Staff proposed replacing the fixed ratio with percentage ranges: residential gross floor area 30%–60% and nonresidential gross floor area 40%–70%. Applying that approach to the Village at Leesburg showed the existing built project’s mix would fall within the proposed ranges.
- Innovation Center (example: Leagate): staff’s test showed that, absent limits, IC rules could yield substantially larger residential counts. To keep the district’s primary economic/innovation role intact, staff recommended treating residential as an accessory use (not a primary use), limiting residential gross floor area in IC to a 0%–30% range, and requiring nonresidential uses to be constructed in an early phase (phasing requirement).

Commission response and adjustments
Commissioners raised concerns about context-sensitivity: several said block-by-block redevelopment in established neighborhoods could be disruptive, and many asked how standards would apply to single-lot infill versus whole-block redevelopment. Commissioners asked staff to explore administrative flexibility for small infill projects and to ensure stormwater, tree-canopy and amenity rules can be applied practically to non-greenfield infill. During discussion commissioners also agreed to reduce a proposed single-family detached minimum lot width further (page change agreed in-session) to better reflect existing lots and infill feasibility.

Next steps
Staff offered to run additional infill test scenarios (single-parcel infill, consolidated greenfield parcels) if commissioners want further review. The presentation will feed into the next draft of the zoning rewrite and the commission requested clearer guidance on administrative adjustments for small redevelopment projects and objective criteria for any zoning-administrator modifications.

Ending: commissioners did not adopt final numeric standards at the Oct. 2 meeting; staff will revise the draft ordinance to reflect the commission’s direction and bring updated pages back for review.