Floyd County adopts new addressing policy to allow addresses for undeveloped lots and multiple addresses per parcel

Floyd County supervisors on May 20 adopted an amendment to the county’s addressing ordinance that allows a property without a structure to receive a street address if the owner shows legal ownership, and permits more than one address on a single parcel when multiple structures have separate occupancy permits. The board set the ordinance to take effect May 1 to give staff time to prepare procedures.

The change responds to repeated testimony during a public hearing from residents who said they already live in permanent, permitted tiny homes, yurts or other non‑traditional dwellings but lack a 911 street address needed for emergency response, driver’s licenses and other services. “It is a permanent fixture home…my underground sewer system and pipes are built into the permanent foundation,” said Laura Hare, Resident, Indian Valley District, describing a 44‑by‑12 foot tiny home she said is on footers and has a certificate of occupancy.

County staff presented two draft ordinance options to the board: both would let a legal lot receive an address without requiring the traditional building‑permit/phone‑line prerequisites; one version retains the building official as the issuing authority, and the other designates the county administrator or a designee to issue addresses. The board adopted the version that authorizes the county administrator or designee to assign addresses and that allows more than one address per parcel where appropriate.

Durbin, a county staff member who prepared both drafts, told the board the proposals require proof of legal ownership and that only “1 address per legal parcel” would be issued under the original option, while the adopted option would permit multiple addresses where multiple certificates of occupancy or building permits exist. “You could have 101 Bluebird Lane and 101A Bluebird Lane,” Durbin said in explaining how multiple addresses might be assigned on a single parcel with more than one permitted occupancy.

Speakers who described operational problems without addresses included Victoria Mall, Resident, Burkes Fork District, who said she permitted a deck under county guidance but was later told a yurt on her land did not qualify for an address. “We were told multiple times all we needed was just a permitted project and then we get an address,” Mall said. Joni Carr, Resident, Locust Grove District, described a 38‑by‑14 tiny home on dug well, septic and fiber optic that she said is fixed to footers and cannot be moved; she told the board the lack of a 911 address prevented her from transferring medical insurance and driver’s license to Virginia.

Other commenters — including Glenn Herman and John Lockwood — said the lack of a street address had created emergency‑response and legal‑identification problems for small, permanent communities of tiny homes and otherwise permitted but nontraditional dwellings. Anand Raghunathan, Resident, Locust Grove District, described a subdivided former farm with multiple sites and said it was “incongruous” that addresses had not already been issued for identified sites.

Board members amended the motion so the ordinance becomes effective May 1 to allow staff time to prepare procedures. The motion to adopt the ordinance that repeals and replaces section 62‑53 of the Floyd County code (the version delegating issuance to the county administrator or designee and allowing multiple addresses per parcel where justified) passed unanimously (5–0).

The ordinance gives the county discretion to issue addresses for undeveloped but legally recognized lots upon proof of ownership; it also permits additional addresses on a parcel that contains multiple permitted residential or commercial occupancies. County staff said the administrator may delegate issuance to a building official or other designated employee, depending on workload.

With the adoption, staff said they will notify DMV and local providers as procedures are finalized and will contact speakers who left contact information to expedite address issuance. The board asked staff to prioritize applicants who have completed permits and meet health‑department and public‑safety requirements.

Residents and several supervisors said the change reflects modern housing patterns and a need to ensure emergency responders can locate people who live in tiny homes, yurts, RVs on permanent foundations and other nontraditional but permanent dwellings.

The board did not change other sections of the addressing code at this meeting; staff said they will produce administrative procedures to implement the ordinance before May 1.

Ending: County staff will return to the board with draft procedures and a plan to notify applicants and relevant state agencies; residents who testified were told staff would follow up directly once the administrative process is in place.