York County Planning Commission recommends tourist home at 1008 Hornsbyville Road
April 08, 2026 | York County, Virginia
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The York County Planning Commission voted 6–0 on April 8 to recommend approval of a special-use permit for a tourist home at 1008 Hornsbyville Road.
Planning staff recommended approval with conditions that would limit rentals to two of the house’s three bedrooms and cap occupancy at four guests, citing parking and neighborhood compatibility standards, fire and life‑safety requirements, and Board Policy BP 24‑30 (which prefers owner‑occupancy or adjacent residency for tourist homes). The staff report described the house as a three‑bedroom, roughly 1,560‑square‑foot detached dwelling and noted the driveway dimensions (about 71 feet by 16 feet) and a zoning requirement for four parking spaces for the proposed use.
Applicant Peter Gould told the commission he renovated the house and needs rental income to cover new mortgage costs. Gould asked the commission to consider allowing a whole‑house rental and increasing the allowable guest count to five or six, saying he preferred not to “live with strangers” but wanted a path to meet his financial obligations. He proposed a designated on‑site responder — his next‑door neighbor, Jason Hellmantowler — who testified he would act as the local contact and would be available to address problems.
Commission discussion centered on Board Policy BP 24‑30, which directs that the owner reside in the home or an adjacent premises. Several commissioners said that while they were sympathetic to Gould’s circumstances, they were reluctant to recommend a whole‑house exception to a policy the Board of Supervisors had consistently enforced. Commissioners also questioned driveway and parking logistics and whether a designated neighbor could satisfy the policy’s intent.
After debate on whether to amend the staff resolution to recommend a whole‑house rental, the commission voted to adopt resolution PC26‑08 to recommend approval of the special‑use permit as presented by staff. The motion passed on a roll call vote of 6–0. The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors, which has authority to uphold, modify or reject the commission’s recommendation.
The staff report and the resolution tie approval to meeting the conditions in the narrative (including the occupancy and monitoring provisions) and compliance with fire and life‑safety codes.
Next steps: the Board of Supervisors will consider the application and the planning commission’s recommendation at a future meeting; the commission’s action was a recommendation only.
Planning staff recommended approval with conditions that would limit rentals to two of the house’s three bedrooms and cap occupancy at four guests, citing parking and neighborhood compatibility standards, fire and life‑safety requirements, and Board Policy BP 24‑30 (which prefers owner‑occupancy or adjacent residency for tourist homes). The staff report described the house as a three‑bedroom, roughly 1,560‑square‑foot detached dwelling and noted the driveway dimensions (about 71 feet by 16 feet) and a zoning requirement for four parking spaces for the proposed use.
Applicant Peter Gould told the commission he renovated the house and needs rental income to cover new mortgage costs. Gould asked the commission to consider allowing a whole‑house rental and increasing the allowable guest count to five or six, saying he preferred not to “live with strangers” but wanted a path to meet his financial obligations. He proposed a designated on‑site responder — his next‑door neighbor, Jason Hellmantowler — who testified he would act as the local contact and would be available to address problems.
Commission discussion centered on Board Policy BP 24‑30, which directs that the owner reside in the home or an adjacent premises. Several commissioners said that while they were sympathetic to Gould’s circumstances, they were reluctant to recommend a whole‑house exception to a policy the Board of Supervisors had consistently enforced. Commissioners also questioned driveway and parking logistics and whether a designated neighbor could satisfy the policy’s intent.
After debate on whether to amend the staff resolution to recommend a whole‑house rental, the commission voted to adopt resolution PC26‑08 to recommend approval of the special‑use permit as presented by staff. The motion passed on a roll call vote of 6–0. The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors, which has authority to uphold, modify or reject the commission’s recommendation.
The staff report and the resolution tie approval to meeting the conditions in the narrative (including the occupancy and monitoring provisions) and compliance with fire and life‑safety codes.
Next steps: the Board of Supervisors will consider the application and the planning commission’s recommendation at a future meeting; the commission’s action was a recommendation only.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
