[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6709684,"mediaKeyId","5070625-3e4bac4bcd16e7c4eb2f665e5959ffaf","parentId",5070625,"title","Planning commission approves accessory-dwelling ordinance amendments with limit of one unit per parcel","audioSeconds",1130,"startMs",3720000,"endMs",4850000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5070625-3e4bac4bcd16e7c4eb2f665e5959ffaf&start=3720&end=4850","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5070625-3e4bac4bcd16e7c4eb2f665e5959ffaf/thumbnail_3720000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6709684/Amelia-County/Virginia/Planning-commission-approves-accessory-dwelling-ordinance-amendments-with-limit-of-one-unit-per-parcel","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6709684-960203a159e5539d62c902e4b382aaf7/orig.mp4?Expires=1775380730&Signature=A7CB7xXhT6TvZ5K4~o7gSKmreHTzWKjMo0cbI1CS7al6AoUqPic6P4JxSbxmM0zUStaeIFubAPCJMEIkQUMEGS53xXfVe4j1ra8bVAR-XG9Wj3j1Enr9-VvMA3nPQ4hmph3afIcvMbtN48MIQNtLYW6xy-Ib9d0E-We9dHCC6M0cbpxeH33K93mXfH760qN0Wo0~yw4exk9wgN9CJU-eYhKa2gqa8uQrh0ZxhT1vvDZrbFTXcLLMeTAjm0J7oEcsfT6YIdqSq~z~QMWoZoyrIz5EX9riWTy2xbtGQoA1O3~9rbMi9jpJst0JpQg7BHi8Cn3LPsMTEkAEJk-aTVWuFg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Amelia County","date","2025-06-24T13:17:11Z","article","The Amelia County Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve proposed ordinance amendments establishing standards for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and to add a provision limiting ADUs to one per parcel. The action approves definition and by‑right rules for ADUs in specified rural districts while creating stricter limits than current detached‑dwelling provisions in some zones.

Planning staff described the draft ordinance as adding a definition of “accessory dwelling unit” and modifying rules for detached accessory dwellings. Key provisions approved by the commission include: health‑department approval required; ADUs limited to no more than 1,000 square feet of conditioned floor area; a maximum of two bedrooms; setbacks equal to the primary structure; ADUs allowed by right in A‑5, RP‑5, RR‑3, R‑10, R‑5 and R‑3 districts if the lot is at least twice the zoning‑district minimum; in R‑1 districts ADUs would require a special‑exception permit; and the commission inserted language restricting ADUs to one per parcel.

Why it matters: the change narrows some of the prior discretion in detached‑dwelling approvals by setting a square‑footage limit, a bedroom cap and minimum lot size thresholds for by‑right approval in non‑subdivision rural zones. Planning staff said the proposals respond to board supervisor concerns about ADUs in subdivisions and reflect discussions among commissioners and staff.

Public comment and commission discussion: Paul White, a resident, urged clearer terminology for accessory structures to avoid mortgage and appraisal problems; he warned that inconsistent county terminology (for example, “hangar” vs. “garage”) can affect lending and marketability. White told the commission, “You can’t get a residential loan that meets secondary‑market guidelines” if county classifications conflict with mortgage underwriters. Staff and commissioners discussed clarifications (for example, explicitly allowing one ADU per parcel) and confirmed that accessory buildings larger than 1,000 square feet may still be built for non‑residential purposes as long as the living portion conforms to the ADU limits and building‑permit rules.

The commission voted to approve the changes with the insertion of the single‑unit‑per‑parcel language; the motion carried unanimously. The ordinance amendment will proceed to the Board of Supervisors, which holds the final public hearing and decision.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Amelia County Planning Commission Meeting - June 23, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The commission approved proposed zoning ordinance changes defining accessory dwelling units, capping size and bedrooms, requiring health-department approval and adding a limit of one accessory dwelling unit per parcel; the measure will go to the Board of Supervisors.","taxTitle","Amelia County, Virginia","taxId",30501,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6709690,"Commission tables special-exception request for farm laborers’ mobile home after neighbors raise concerns",2693,467000,3160000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5070625-3e4bac4bcd16e7c4eb2f665e5959ffaf&start=467&end=3160","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5070625-3e4bac4bcd16e7c4eb2f665e5959ffaf/thumbnail_467000.jpg","/articles/6709690/Amelia-County/Virginia/Commission-tables-special-exception-request-for-farm-laborers-mobile-home-after-neighbors-raise-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6709690-2ad9d22c7fee17247fe33263bbb11a23/orig.mp4?Expires=1775380730&Signature=FzBbPJtaPZQOlfnq0qH9mHXu0dUm7PjIRv9Cqb70EwUIeCZs7M3EWjmi0BlWrQ4OD9z8UmlHY4k2kj-WSGaf2IJNKZs5HfRhxcPdLIJMTD0Df0i-XoeRV~CSN1~EuspZA6JLZSEQ6k1jsWkQysDh~oB-EaX6ZB0t-0gp6BdFqZgzlc2pvikPa4dtlPJf3jGCZkqf2yQigE4se2EHW~llH6HVAJzTY3wk24usb-OL63deEKsgTVb4vIUSM-gFtUuMNrfi1TdWTZ3s9wtp1Y6hlSgo-cS4NUXdwmk1FcqksSfgQww3XsTD~tj8RmKkAOl6KYt4m37YBM4atXFyGwYpNQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Amelia County Planning Commission voted to table for 30 days a special-exception permit request to place a double-wide mobile home for farm laborers on property at 11541 Grove Hill Church Road (tax map 2110B), owned by Watkins Nursery. The delay is intended to allow county departments and neighbors additional time to review site details and for the applicant and neighbors to try to reach a compromise before the item goes to the Board of Supervisors.

Staff presented the request as a special-exception permit allowed under the zoning code that permits a detached mobile home on a farm for use by one or more persons employed on the farm. The applicant submitted a sketch locating an approximately 2,300‑square‑foot double-wide on the Winterham Road side of the property. Staff recommended conditions including that the unit be a double-wide, located generally where shown on the sketch, and meet applicable setback requirements; staff noted the code allows special‑exception placement and that health department approval would be required.

Neighbors and nearby property owners spoke at the public hearing and expressed opposition and concerns. Monica Robinson, representing Florence Robinson Estates, told the commission, “We are opposed to the placement of the mobile home for laborers on the property,” citing proximity to adjacent residential property and the potential for more occupants than neighbors expect. Several residents raised questions about sewage, water and electrical service, long‑term occupancy and the enforcement of permits for other nearby properties that residents said contain informal or converted housing. One resident asked whether the laborers are documented; the applicant said workers are on H‑2A visas and typically remain for up to about 10 months of the year and that county and state inspectors (health department and Virginia Employment Commission) inspect housing used in the H‑2A program.

County staff and commissioners clarified technical points: the proposed mobile home would require a new well and septic, front‑setback requirements for the mobile home would be greater than for a typical dwelling (staff cited a 150‑foot front setback vs. 100 feet for a typical home in the discussion), and occupancy limits are not specified in the zoning ordinance; occupancy is typically controlled by number of bedrooms and health‑department permitting for septic and water systems. Staff noted existing complaints and an active investigation of another nearby property referenced by residents; the commission encouraged county departments to follow up.

After public comment and internal discussion, a planning commissioner moved to table the special-exception permit for 30 days to allow additional review and negotiation; the motion carried unanimously. The planning commission’s action pauses the commission’s recommendation and sends the item back for further work; the Board of Supervisors will hold the final public hearing and decision once the item leaves the planning commission.

Details and clarifications: the applicant indicated the proposed unit will be a custom‑built double‑wide sized to accommodate the number of bathrooms/bedrooms required for the intended number of residents; the applicant said current labor housing on other parcels is inspected annually by the health department and periodically by the Department of Labor or the Virginia Employment Commission for H‑2A compliance. The commission and staff reiterated that, absent a code change, the zoning ordinance does not set a numeric limit on occupants per mobile home; any restriction based on occupancy would be enforced by health‑department and building‑permit requirements (e.g., septic sizing tied to bedrooms).","A special-exception permit to place a double-wide mobile home for farm laborers on property owned by Watkins was tabled for 30 days after neighbors raised concerns about density, septic/electric infrastructure and spillover from other unpermitted housing nearby; applicant says workers are H‑2A and housing will be inspected.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6709694,"Planning commission approves Garber Motors site-plan review, forwards to board",222,178000,400000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5070625-3e4bac4bcd16e7c4eb2f665e5959ffaf&start=178&end=400","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5070625-3e4bac4bcd16e7c4eb2f665e5959ffaf/thumbnail_178000.jpg","/articles/6709694/Amelia-County/Virginia/Planning-commission-approves-Garber-Motors-site-plan-review-forwards-to-board","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6709694-c32a27acf7248cfc5c3fd4adbf2c44ad/orig.mp4?Expires=1775380730&Signature=OBCGeOfcNrO3PsT1L-7sZds2QVg~J4IqbA~dLRVRkWtIY22ZBphGBPVMFn3Snn~uKi~7Zp4913Nu0ZHEqx0iae7ukQJN4Iisg2ATGTWC6Qy~4MD80G0PcrgyHCO2GNT6UGt5Ip8h63AEBbcbrq76cno4HCtsDHaIz0fVCXgYQAW7zy5Bx9ch0-LjXI22BR9gAXVgjUlR~jJ4gbnIsxsnYb3ghIcFd2ubbAB6TL~2gfjAxwYIDDGjLCFQu~~XX33FZjtsTTWh2ZIJ0SHMzgbiiV2CoHuRw8WsFwVb2~DT9ZkCcIHfqAHwVqyJIAuNUVY9pIKkEf7UexIgqas1JRSrcg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Amelia County Planning Commission unanimously approved a concept site-plan review for Garber Motors and forwarded the matter to the Board of Supervisors after county staff said the proposal complies with the B‑1 zoning district and the Route 360 Overlay District.

County planning staff told the commission that the property already was rezoned to B‑1 and that, because the submission is a concept site-plan review (not a rezoning or a special-exception request), the commission’s review is limited to verifying code compliance. “It is sort of unique in that this is not a special exception permit request, not a rezoning. So there’s no ability to put conditions on this request,” staff said during the meeting. The commission voted to approve the plan and forward it to the Board of Supervisors; the motion carried unanimously.

Why it matters: under the applicable zoning rules and the Route 360 overlay, concept-plan review requires the planning commission to evaluate whether a proposed development meets standards in the ordinance but does not allow the commission to add conditions outside the code. That means the Board of Supervisors will consider the plan with the staff finding that it meets zoning and overlay requirements.

Details: staff reported that the submission meets the B‑1 district standards and the supplemental standards of the Route 360 Overlay District. A public hearing drew no speakers. The planning commission recorded a motion to approve and a second (Harris), and commissioners voted “aye.” The packet recommendation from staff is now before the Board of Supervisors for final action.

Next steps: the item will be placed on the Board of Supervisors’ agenda for its public hearing and decision; the board has final authority.","The Amelia County Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the concept site plan for Garber Motors and forwarded the item to the Board of Supervisors after staff confirmed the plan meets B-1 zoning and Route 360 Overlay requirements.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission approves accessory-dwelling ordinance amendments with limit of one unit per parcel

Commission tables special-exception request for farm laborers’ mobile home after neighbors raise concerns

Planning commission approves Garber Motors site-plan review, forwards to board