Planners propose allowing one caretaker or owner suite for Purcellville bed-and-breakfasts

Vice Chair (presiding) opened discussion of a staff-proposed zoning amendment to allow a caregiver/owner suite as an accessory dwelling for bed-and-breakfast operations in Purcellville. Planner Sullivan said the proposal's core goal is to help small B&B operators remain viable by permitting one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on-site for an owner or full-time staff member to manage guests and operations after normal business hours.

"One of the various changes that we're looking to make, 1 is to allow 1 accessory dwelling to be used on-site," Planner Sullivan said, explaining staff's intent to limit the allowance to a single accessory dwelling per lot associated with the B&B. He added that the draft would require the ADU to be occupied by the owner or a staff member designated by the owner.

The staff memo also proposed adjusting the maximum lodging period for B&Bs from 14 days to 30 days to align with the ordinance's short-term rental section (section 3.9). "The request to change it to 30 days is again to bring it in line with what the short-term rentals' are allowed to have," Planner Sullivan said.

Planner Sullivan said staff planned to permit caretaker/owner suites by right in several zoning districts (R3A, MC, C4X and AC) with a general standard restricting use of the accessory dwelling to the owner or designated on-site staff. He clarified how square footage would be counted: guest bedrooms would typically be counted toward commercial square footage while the caretaker suite would be counted as residential.

Resident Bill Hambach, who attended the meeting, described his situation operating a converted barn bed-and-breakfast on a single lot and asked whether a caretaker suite could be detached, how additional accessory structures would be treated, and whether a caretaker would require a second address. Planner Sullivan responded that the draft envisions one ADU per B&B, that accessory structures (sheds, gazebos) could exist but would not count as additional ADUs, and that addressing is handled by Loudoun County and could use unit designators such as "100A/100B" rather than a separate street number.

Commissioners pressed staff on several technical points: whether previously approved accessory structures would be considered vested or subject to reinterpretation under the amendment; whether the caretaker suite must be attached to the primary dwelling or could be a detached structure; and how commercial-versus-residential square footage would be determined on mixed-use lots. Planner Sullivan said those details would require additional staff review and that he would return with written clarifications.

No formal action was taken on the amendment tonight; Vice Chair (presiding) summarized that commissioners appeared generally aligned on scoping the caretaker/owner suite to B&B operations and requested more detailed impact analysis and draft language for the next meeting.

The next procedural step is that staff will provide a written summary of the answers to commissioners' technical questions and return with more information at the commission's March 5 meeting. The item remains discussion-only this session and was not scheduled for a vote.