Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Accessory Dwelling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA defers accessory‑dwelling and variances for poultry farm property pending detailed site plan
Summary
The board deferred a special‑use permit and variances permitting a second dwelling on a poultry farm property (SUSE 140‑2025; Variance 117‑2025) and asked the applicant to submit a detailed site plan showing where the existing single‑wide would be moved and how setback and poultry‑operation setbacks would be met.
The Accomack County Board of Zoning Appeals deferred action on SUSE 140‑2025 and Variance 117‑2025, an after‑the‑fact application seeking an accessory dwelling and multiple variances on a 59‑acre poultry farm (tax map 69‑A‑54), after board members and staff asked for a more detailed site plan showing where an existing single‑wide would be relocated.
Staff said the applicant placed a new manufactured home while the older single‑wide remained on site; a certificate of occupancy had been issued for the new unit even though the single‑wide was not removed. The manufactured home as sited requires variances from poultry‑farm setback rules (200 feet from property lines) and the accessory dwelling size limit (1,200 square feet). Staff recommended approval of the special‑use permit given parcel size, but said the applicant had not met the burden for multiple variances.
Adjacent property owner John Schneider spoke in opposition to after‑the‑fact permitting and expressed concern about precedent, noting the two dwellings currently on the parcel and asking why the single‑wide was not removed as originally agreed. Mohammad Iqbal, speaking for the applicant, said the single‑wide had been used for poultry workers and that the owner intended to correct the situation.
Paul Watson, deputy director of code administration, and board members discussed approaches: require removal of the single‑wide or require a new site plan showing where the single‑wide would be moved so the board could evaluate setbacks and the poultry‑operation ordinance’s 200‑foot requirement. Several board members recommended deferral to get a survey/site plan and a clearer mitigation proposal rather than approving variances without a concrete relocation plan.
The board voted to defer the application and asked staff and the applicant to return with a detailed site plan that shows where the single‑wide would be relocated with confirmed setbacks and any necessary changes to the variance request.
