Commission opens public hearing on accessory‑structure zoning text amendments; defers decision after public comment and discussion

The Planning Commission opened a public hearing April 21 on zoning text amendments that would change how New Kent County regulates accessory buildings and align the county’s Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) procedures with state law. After public comment and an extended discussion about impacts on farmers and property owners, the commission voted to defer the amendments to a future meeting for further staff review.

Zoning administrator Angela Lefflett presented proposed changes to Chapter 98. Key provisions in the draft include: increasing the cumulative limit for detached accessory structures in residential zones from 50% to 60% of a primary dwelling’s floor area; replacing the historical agricultural limit of 3,000 square feet with a new formula of 5% of the lot area measured beyond the front setback or a cap of 10,000 square feet, whichever is less; limiting the number of detached accessory structures on lots under 20 acres to eight; codifying that porches, lean‑tos and gazebos count toward accessory square footage; and adding a defined accessory dwelling unit (a secondary living unit with separate kitchen, bathroom and sleeping area, attached or detached).

Lefflett also proposed BZA ordinance updates to align variance and administrative modification criteria with the Code of Virginia, to remove a special‑exception process that staff said better fits conditional use procedures handled by the Board of Supervisors, and to add an administrative modification pathway for bona fide farming operations. Under the draft, administrative modifications for farms would require application and neighbor notice; if neighbors do not object within 21 days the modification could be approved administratively, otherwise the request would go to the BZA. The record shows a BZA variance fee of $750 and an administrative modification fee of $450.

Public comment and commission questions: resident Thomas Pugh spoke during public comment saying he uses multiple outbuildings for equipment, hay and personal vehicles and urging caution about limits that could affect long‑standing property uses. Commissioners debated whether the proposed limits would unduly restrict bona fide farming operations and whether the proposed administrative modification or variance process would be an adequate and affordable path for farmers to obtain relief. Several commissioners urged retaining a practical exception for bona fide farms and asked staff to show how the county would verify a farm’s status.

Outcome: Commissioner Bennett moved to defer the text amendments to the next meeting so staff could further evaluate farming exemptions, clarify the administrative modification process, and return with recommended revisions. The motion to defer carried by roll call vote.

Why it matters: accessory‑structure rules affect homeowners’ ability to add garages, barns, sheds and other outbuildings and can have visual and operational effects on rural character. Commissioners emphasized balancing the county’s rural identity with orderly development and clarity for property owners and contractors.

Next steps: staff will revise the draft language taking commissioner feedback into account — including potential explicit exemptions or clearer verification for bona fide farms — and return the item for further public hearing and decision at a future Planning Commission meeting.