Lynchburg planning commission split on Miller Home for Girls CUP; forwards recommendation to City Council

LYNCHBURG — The Lynchburg Planning Commission on Feb. 25 was unable to reach a clear majority recommendation on a conditional use permit sought by Miller Home for Girls to operate a group home for up to eight children at 271 Riverside Drive, and the item will be forwarded to City Council with the commission’s recorded split vote and staff-recommended conditions.

Planning staff opened the hearing by noting the property is in an R-2 low-to-medium density residential district and that the city’s zoning ordinance requires a conditional use permit when a group home will house more than four children. Planner Rachel told the commission that Miller Home had consulted zoning staff in September 2025 and were told the use was allowed for up to eight residents, but that subsequent review showed a CUP should have been required. “Staff was incorrect,” Rachel said, adding that the Board of Zoning Appeals had recently ruled a recovery home serving a protected class is a by-right use under the Fair Housing Act.

Morgan Kane Ryan, executive director of Miller Home for Girls, described the organization’s nearly 150-year history serving young women and urged the commission to approve the permit so the nonprofit can continue providing residential care in Lynchburg. “Miller Home is not simply a residence. It’s a supportive environment where healing happens,” Ryan said.

Neighborhood speakers expressed strong concerns about parking, safety and neighborhood character. Property owner Carla Hamilton, who lives adjacent to the site, told the commission she had observed as many as nine or 10 vehicles and raised questions about certificates of occupancy and compliance with state administrative code standards cited during testimony. “Our homes and our quality of life is important,” Hamilton said, urging the commission to listen to neighbors.

Resident organizer Carolyn Wicks presented the results of a neighborhood survey she said showed 67% of participants opposed the CUP. Wicks and other neighbors argued the setting at 271 Riverside — which staff described as an existing two-story house on roughly one-third of an acre, built in 2025 and about 3,000 square feet — is isolated, lacks sidewalks and has limited on-site recreation space. Neighbors urged that, if the commission acted, any CUP be limited to Miller Home and not be transferable to future owners to avoid setting a precedent.

Commissioners questioned Miller Home staff about visitation and operations. Ryan said visitors must be arranged in advance through the executive director or program director, and that office space and locked storage for confidential records are located in the building. She said the home currently has three Miller Home vehicles and expects to reduce that number as one large van is being sold; childcare staffing consists of a single 24-hour childcare worker per shift, with rotating personnel.

The commission debated two motions. One commissioner moved to decline the resolution recommending approval; that motion failed on a split voice vote. Another motion to approve the CUP as written, with three staff-recommended conditions including language stating the CUP “shall not follow title to the property at 271 Riverside Drive,” was made, seconded and carried on a split vote. The chair said the commission will forward the matter to City Council with the commission’s comments and the record of neighborhood concerns.

Planning staff had recommended conditions that include making the CUP specific to Miller Home and nontransferable to subsequent owners, but staff and multiple speakers noted limits created by the BZA ruling and federal Fair Housing law that can allow certain group homes for protected classes as by-right uses in single-family residences.

The commission’s recommendation is advisory; City Council will take final action on the CUP. The commission also asked staff to clarify the proposed resolution language so Council hears the commission’s concerns about neighborhood impacts and the intended limits of the recommended conditions.

The meeting closed with housekeeping and scheduling items; commissioners were asked to flag calendar conflicts for upcoming work sessions, an open house and public hearing related to another project.