Planning Commission approves accessory-structure and BZA ordinance amendments

New Kent County’s Planning Commission voted May 19 to approve PC‑0725, a package of zoning ordinance amendments that raise residential accessory-structure limits, add a definition for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), create a farm-use exemption from certain square-footage limits, and revise the county’s Board of Zoning Appeals chapter to align with state law.

The amendments approve changes to Chapter 98, Section 98‑10 of the New Kent County code. Angela Lefflet, New Kent County zoning administrator, told the commission the proposal changes the residential rule so "the cumulative total of all detached accessory structures may not exceed 60% of the total floor area for the primary structure." For A‑1 (agricultural) lots, the ordinance retains the existing standard that accessory structures may total up to 5% of the lot area beyond the front setback line but not exceed 10,000 square feet, whichever is less, Lefflet said.

The package removes a prior numeric cap on the number of structures for smaller A‑1 lots and adds a farm exemption: "Buildings or structures accessory to a farm use as defined in the Code of Virginia ... are hereby exempt from the provisions listed above in section 98‑10(c)(3)," Lefflet said. She described acceptable evidence of farm use to include "active business licenses, farming registrations, AFD designation, and other similar documentation that staff finds sufficiently confirms the farm use is being operated." The transcript records the county referencing the state farm definition in its explanation.

The amendments also add a separate definition for accessory dwelling units and leave the existing ADU size restriction language in place: ADUs are limited by the ordinance provision that they "must in no case contain in excess of 25% of total square footage of [the] single‑family home to which [it is] accessory or 450 square feet, whichever is greater," language the commission discussed but did not change at this meeting. Commissioners asked staff to study whether that ADU cap should be revisited as part of the county’s larger zoning rewrite.

On Board of Zoning Appeals procedures, the ordinance aligns the local variance and administrative‑modification language with the Code of Virginia, removes the local special‑exception process that duplicates Board of Supervisors authority, and clarifies administrative modification thresholds. Lefflet said the administrative modification provision will specify that an encroachment "does not exceed 1 and 1/2 linear feet," language intended to match common practice in other localities.

Staff and commissioners also clarified fees: variance applications to the BZA remain $750; the prior administrative‑modification fee (previously $450) is not applicable under the revised structure; and the farm exemption does not carry a fee, Lefflet said.

The planning commission voted on the motion to approve PC‑0725. Roll call recorded the votes as: Mister Lowder Schall — aye; Mister Moyer — abstain; Miss Rose — aye; Doctor Schmidt — aye; Miss Johnson — aye; Mister Grabroski — aye; Miss Townsend — aye; Reverend Hathaway — aye; Ms. Thomas — aye; Mr. Bennett — aye; Mr. Davis — aye. The motion carried.

Commissioners and staff noted the item had been discussed at earlier hearings in February and April and that the language incorporated feedback from commissioners and the county’s AFD advisory committee. Several commissioners asked staff to analyze ADU size limits further during the county’s longer zoning‑code rewrite so the commission can consider potential ADU adjustments with more research and time.

The commission’s approval at this meeting constitutes the Planning Commission’s action on PC‑0725; the transcript does not record any additional formal action beyond the motion and roll call.