Planning commission debates ADU size limits, asks staff to craft pathway for existing small homes

The Amelia County Planning Commission considered proposed amendments to the county—s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance, debating how to balance limits that keep ADUs subordinate to primary homes with flexibility for older farmhouses and starter homes.

Staff summarized prior actions: the commission had recommended an ADU ordinance in June, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing in July and directed staff in September to limit ADUs to the RP-5, R-5 and RR-3 zoning districts and to cap conditioned floor area at 50% of the primary dwelling up to a maximum of 1,000 square feet. The draft amendment also limits ADUs to two bedrooms and includes provisions about single-wide manufactured homes being permitted only where single-wide units are allowed generally in the district.

During public comment, David Keener, a real estate agent who lives in Amelia, told commissioners the proposed 1,000-square-foot cap and 50% rule are "a little too limiting" for many older farmhouses and starter homes and warned the restriction could remove modest rental houses from the market. "We've got a housing shortage. We got a rental shortage in the county," Keener said, and he asked the commission to revisit the cap so older homes (he cited a particular 1,137-square-foot house) could remain in use as rental housing or be converted into a lawful ADU.

Staff and commissioners discussed how the rules would operate in practice: if a property owner wants to build a new primary dwelling and convert the existing residence to an ADU, the ordinance as drafted requires the new primary to be at least 50% larger than the existing dwelling (the effect is that a small existing home would require a substantially larger new primary under the 50% rule). Commissioners debated whether to retain the 1,000-square-foot cap, remove square-foot limits and rely only on a percentage, or keep the cap but create an explicit pathway (special exception/variance language) so owners of small existing homes could build a larger primary and convert the old house without being barred by the cap.

An email read into the record from Diane Gunter (District 4) objected to allowing ADUs in RR-3 where houses on close lots (she wrote "as close as 40 to 50 feet") could reduce privacy for elderly neighbors. The commission acknowledged neighborhood-compatibility concerns and noted that the draft amendment would not allow ADUs in subdivisions because subdivision creation requires rezoning.

Commission members generally indicated support for keeping a relatively low cap to prevent ADUs from becoming de facto full second residences (staff said many jurisdictions use a 50% or roughly 1,000-square-foot standard). Several commissioners asked staff to draft clearer pathways or special-exception language so an owner of an existing small house could build a new primary and convert the old house to an ADU. The commission then directed staff to forward the draft amendment to the Board of Supervisors for consideration and to prepare language/options addressing existing small homes and special exceptions.