Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates size caps, exemptions and a pathway to convert primary homes under proposed ADU rules
Summary
Amelia County planners debated a proposed ADU ordinance that would limit accessory units to 50% of a primary dwelling or 1,000 sq ft (whichever is smaller), heard public concern about neighborhood impacts and housing supply, and discussed adding special‑exception or conversion pathways before forwarding the ordinance to the Board.
The Amelia County Planning Commission spent an extended portion of its meeting reviewing proposed changes to the county's accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance, focusing on a 50%‑of‑the‑primary dwelling rule with a 1,000‑square‑foot cap and whether the rules should provide a pathway or special‑exception process for homeowners with existing houses over the cap.
Planning staff summarized the proposal: ADUs would be allowed only in the A5, RP5 and RR3 zoning districts, ADU conditioned floor area would be limited to 50% of the primary dwelling up to a maximum of 1,000 square feet, and single‑wide manufactured homes used as ADUs would be permitted only in districts where those homes are allowed by use. Staff said the 50% threshold and the 1,000‑square‑foot cap reflected averages seen in other localities.
Several members of the public urged adjustments. David Keener, a local real‑estate agent, said the 1,000‑square‑foot cap and the 50% rule could be ‘‘minimizing’’ and might take existing rental units out of circulation. Keener argued that older farmhouses that are, for example, 1,137 square feet would be ineligible under the cap and that the ordinance should better support additional rental capacity on existing lots. He said the policy could help limit sprawl by adding housing capacity to already developed parcels.
An email read into the record from Diane Gunter (District 4) raised neighborhood privacy and safety concerns about allowing ADUs in RR3 areas where lots can sit 40–50 feet apart: "I would not feel safe with random people continually coming and going so close to me and my elderly neighbors," the email said.
Commissioners debated several options to preserve the ordinance’s intent while responding to public concerns: retain the 1,000‑square‑foot cap and the two‑bedroom limit to deter creation of full second residences; rely solely on a percentage rule (which would give different results depending on the size of the primary dwelling); or add a pathway by which a homeowner could build a new, larger primary dwelling (for example, 1.5× or 2× the existing size) and convert the previous primary dwelling to an ADU. Some commissioners suggested a special‑exception or variance procedure to allow case‑by‑case approval when strict application of the caps would be unduly restrictive.
Staff also noted a separate state provision allowing a temporary health‑care structure of roughly 320 square feet that must be removed when no longer needed; staff said the statutory requirements are strict and the temporary structure is rarely used.
No formal commission vote on the ADU ordinance was recorded in the transcript. Commissioners signaled interest in either adding special‑exception language to create flexibility or clarifying a conversion pathway, and discussed tabling the item for redrafting or forwarding it with recommended language for the Board of Supervisors to consider.
Next steps: the commission did not adopt a final position on the ordinance during the transcripted session; staff and commissioners discussed drafting language to address the conversion pathway and special exceptions before returning or forwarding the item to the Board.
