Supervisors recommend approval for Mint Cottage tourist-home permit with one-time transfer condition

Rappahannock County supervisors voted to recommend approval of Special Exception 260501 — a modification of a tourist-home permit for the property at 417 Main Street (the Mint Cottage) — that removes the permit’s current automatic termination-on-transfer condition for one immediate transfer but terminates on subsequent transfers.

Planning staff described the application as a request to replace an earlier special-use permit (No. 220101) and to remove the condition that the permit ends on sale or transfer; staff said the health department had no objections and recommended retaining other conditions including a six-person guest maximum and a prohibition on food service. "Gilder Frontier, John Diane and Rick Fierce have applied for a special exception to replace their existing special use permit…for their tourist home," staff said.

Applicant John Diamond McPherson told the board the Mint Cottage was renovated specifically to operate as a tourist home before the county adopted its two-year ownership requirement. "The Mint Cottage was built…specifically to be a tourist home," McPherson said, and he described substantial investment in converting a dilapidated warehouse into the facility now in use.

Several supervisors objected that removing the transfer condition would undercut the county’s March 2024 ordinance requiring an owner to hold a parcel for two years before a new tourist-home application may be accepted. "If we as a county grant this request and establish this new precedent, it would open the door…to all future tourist homes to ask for the same consideration," one supervisor told the board, urging caution about precedent and the ordinance’s purpose of discouraging speculative purchases.

After extended debate about legal authority, precedent and practical compromises, a supervisor proposed recommending approval with a modified condition: allow the pending transfer to proceed (the immediate transfer to the identified buyer/operator) but require that any subsequent transfer terminate the permit, while keeping all original operational conditions intact. The motion was seconded and carried on a roll call: Mr. Sholin (Aye), Mr. Atkins (Aye), Mr. White (Aye), Mr. Hemming (Aye), Mr. Krieger (No). The board instructed staff to contact the developer for the county board’s final approval.

Public commenters and several supervisors discussed complementary regulatory options, including a recurring licensing or fee-based renewal for active tourist-home operators and the possibility of a two-year review after transfer to ensure continued compliance; staff noted practical collection and authority questions would require follow-up.

The action before the board was an advisory recommendation; the county’s full board approval and any final permit language will follow staff processing and the board’s review. The planning staff indicated the revised permit would retain existing limits (maximum six guests, no food service) with the sole change to the transfer condition as recommended.