A first analysis compared the proposed ordinance to an interim draft. A reader asked the better question: how does it compare to the code in force right now? These are two different documents — and the answer is a rewrite, not an edit.
A note on this piece. This is an independent demonstration of document-analysis work, comparing two publicly available ordinances. It takes no position on the merits of the proposed changes, and it is not legal advice. Anyone acting on a zoning question should consult qualified counsel and the county's Official Zoning Map.
Existing code 2003 Zoning Ordinance — Lewisburg & Fort Spring Tax Districts
Proposed Proposed Ordinance, redlined by County Commission 3/10/26
The ordinance in force today runs on Articles 100 through 1014, with section numbers like 800.02. The proposal runs on an entirely different system — §101, §301, §402. There is no crosswalk between them. A resident cannot look up "the new version" of a section they care about, because the structure was rebuilt from the ground up.
That makes this comparison different from a redline. There's no shared text to strike and insert against — so the work is to read both ordinances in full and line them up by subject, then report where the regime a resident lives under actually moves.
Minimum lot size is the figure that decides how much can be built where. The two districts effectively swap tiers: Residential takes on the smaller minimums, Forest Recreation the larger ones.
| Minimum lot size | In force today | Proposed | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Residential — water & sewer | 20,000 sq ft | 12,000 sq ft | smaller / denser |
| Residential — water only | 30,000 sq ft | 20,000 sq ft | smaller / denser |
| Residential — neither | 43,560 sq ft (1 ac) | 32,670 sq ft (¾ ac) | smaller / denser |
| Forest Recreation — water & sewer | 12,000 sq ft | 20,000 sq ft | larger / less dense |
| Forest Recreation — neither | 32,670 sq ft | 43,560 sq ft (1 ac) | larger / less dense |
| Open Space Conservation | 2 acres | 2 acres | unchanged |
| Max. building height (all districts) | 60 feet | 40 feet | lower |
Residential also gains housing types by right — duplexes, townhouses, and small condominiums — where the 2003 code allowed essentially single-family and small multi-family.
A large share of the proposal isn't a change to existing rules — it's a first-time framework for uses the current code simply doesn't mention. Two the community has focused on:
No mass-gathering provision exists today. The proposal creates one — defining the use and setting permit terms: up to 36 permitted events per parcel per year on five or more contiguous acres, with events held privately by the landowner exempt from permitting.
No agritourism category exists today. The proposal establishes one, subject to a short set of conditions — sanitation, food safety, and parking.
Beyond those two, the proposal introduces a broad set of categories that are entirely new relative to the code in force today:
Breweries, brewery pubs, wineries and farm wineries, distilleries, cideries; short-term rentals; special-event permitting; reception/event facilities as a named use.
Small and large solar; wind energy systems; a dedicated wireless/small-cell framework with a new Telecommunication Facilities Overlay. (The 2003 code addressed only tall communication towers.)
Accessory dwelling units (one per single-family lot, ≤50% of the main dwelling); emergency shelters; continuing-care and medical adult day care as named categories; medical cannabis dispensing, growing, and processing.
Tattoo parlors and body-piercing studios; recycling facilities; an Airport Overlay governing height and use near the airport.
Some arrive with only light standards attached — developed in the companion redline analysis. And a caution on reading this: several familiar uses are modernized, not created. Manufactured, mobile, and modular homes are already in the 2003 code and are simply realigned to federal standards here; recreational vehicles, slaughterhouses, livestock markets, and roadside stands likewise already exist in current law.
The 2003 ordinance binds two tax districts. The proposal is written as the county's ordinance and applies to "the zoned portions of Greenbrier County" — while calling itself a "partial" ordinance. Whether that expands the physically zoned area is the single biggest question a resident could ask.
It isn't in the PDF. Which parcels are zoned — and whether your parcel becomes newly zoned — is set by the Official Zoning Map, a separate certified document that isn't part of either ordinance file. The proposal reframes the ordinance as countywide in identity and structure; the map decides the ground truth. That's the first thing to check with the county, and no reading of these two PDFs alone can settle it.
The 2003 code lets about a dozen mostly-institutional uses into Residential by special exception. The proposal's conditional-use list runs to ~39, newly including auto repair, gas stations, taverns, tattoo parlors, and retail — each still by hearing, but the menu expands sharply.
Much of the proposal isn't loosening — it's first-time rules for things 2003 never contemplated: short-term rentals, solar and wind, wireless facilities, breweries and distilleries, mass gatherings, accessory dwelling units, medical cannabis.
The rewrite isn't uniformly permissive. Building height drops from 60 to 40 feet across districts, accessory-building setbacks in Commercial and Industrial rise from 5 to 15 feet, and Forest Recreation lot minimums increase.
A structural comparison, grouped by subject — scope, legal machinery, districts, density, and what's newly regulated.
Primary sources: 2003 code ↗ · proposed ordinance ↗
Contracts, ordinances, RFPs, policy drafts, inspection reports. If it's long and it matters, I'll tell you what's in it.
Start a Project