Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves accessory-dwelling ordinance amendments with limit of one unit per parcel
Summary
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.
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.
