King William supervisors approve package of zoning changes, including ADU and accessory-building limits

The King William County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 20 approved several amendments to the county zoning and subdivision ordinances, including changes that affect cluster subdivisions, driveway construction standards for large lots, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and accessory buildings.

The board voted unanimously to adopt the package after staff said portions of the utilities text had not been properly advertised and would be returned for Planning Commission review and public notice. County staff told supervisors the provision requiring 5% of gross land area to be set aside for recreational facilities in some subdivisions was taken verbatim from New Kent County’s ordinance and inserted into King William’s draft; staff said they would provide the unadvertised utility-code language to the board and work with the director of utilities before those sections return for public hearing.

Staff presentation and Planning Commission recommendations

County staff summarized each change and noted the Planning Commission reviewed and forwarded most items with a recommendation of approval at its Jan. 6 meeting. Key items included removing a countywide driveway construction requirement for major-subdivision lots of three acres or more; Planning Commission materials and staff explained that requiring the same heavy pavement standards for large-acreage lots was impractical and costly. The board opened the public hearing on that amendment, received no public comment, and approved it by roll-call vote.

On ADUs, staff proposed allowing detached accessory dwellings by right in the AC and RR districts up to 1,000 square feet of finished living space; attached ADU expansions would be limited to 25% of the primary dwelling’s above-grade living area. The draft would allow attached garages only by conditional-use permit, and it inserts a familial-occupancy restriction that defines “immediate family” using the Code of Virginia’s language (natural or legally defined offspring, stepchild, spouse, sibling, grandchild, grandparent or parent of the owner). The Planning Commission recommended approval and the board approved the amendment. Staff clarified that fee levels are handled separately; a fee study is underway and the ordinance text does not itself set the fee amount.

Accessory buildings and square-foot thresholds

The board also approved revisions that add a definition section for accessory buildings and a sliding scale limiting total detached accessory-building square footage based on parcel size (for example, the draft shows a 1,000-square-foot cap on the aggregate total for the smallest parcel bracket, rising to 1,500 and 2,000 square feet for larger brackets, and no limit on the number of structures for parcels above five acres while retaining per-structure size limits). Staff cited a complaint about a property with multiple connected carports as a reason for clarification. The Planning Commission had forwarded the draft with recommendation; no public comments were offered during the hearing.

Process and next steps

For one ordinance (the utilities provisions that staff said were taken from New Kent), staff acknowledged those changes had not been properly advertised as a code change; the board approved the core ordinance language now and directed staff to bring the utilities text back after Planning Commission review and proper advertisement so the board can act on those sections. The board also agreed by consensus to schedule a joint work session with the Economic Development Authority within several weeks to discuss incentives and tax-rate comparisons for business recruitment; staff recommended legal and finance staff attend to review permissible incentive structures and budget implications.

Quotes from the meeting

County staff said of the unadvertised utility provisions, “I will work with the director of utilities to get that taken care of.” Lee McKnight, who presented the Public Works update, told the board, “I really just wanna say thank you for everyone’s patience” during heavy winter-storm response.

Votes at a glance

- Ordinance 01-25 (cluster subdivision amendment): approved (roll-call, unanimous ‘Aye’).
- Driveway standard amendment (exemption for lots 3+ acres): approved (roll-call, unanimous ‘Aye’).
- ADU ordinance amendment (detached ADU by right up to 1,000 sq ft; familial-occupancy restriction): approved (roll-call, unanimous ‘Aye’).
- Accessory buildings amendment (sliding scale of total detached accessory-building square footage by parcel size): approved (roll-call, unanimous ‘Aye’).

The board heard a separate Public Works presentation on road projects and snow response; Lee McKnight said two rural rustic roads are slated for construction in March 2026 and Route 600 (East River Road) is funded for March 2027. The meeting ended after routine administrative updates and supervisors’ comments.

What remains unclear or pending

Staff repeatedly noted that several utility-related code provisions were not properly advertised and would return after Planning Commission review; the board directed staff to provide the final text and to advertise the utility-code changes before the board takes final action on those sections. The fee amounts referenced during ADU discussion are not in the ordinance text and will be addressed in a separate fee-study process.