Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Buckingham Supervisor Dennis Davis had one question Monday night. Why, after the Buckingham County duplex project had been rejected by the planning commission, was it coming up before the county board for a vote? 

“I think we should trust our planning commission,” Davis said. “The planning commission turned this down. It should have never got to this point.” 

He was referring to the two-part request from Ivan Petersheim, involving a property at 5516 Ridge Road. The project, which spent the last two months being discussed by the planning commission, involves the building on the property, what used to be the old Whitworth Country Store. Petersheim wants to take it and turn it into a duplex. In his application paperwork, Petersheim said he was doing this to help provide affordable housing. During the planning commission discussions, neighbors raised concerns about turning that one building, which sits on 0.95 of an acre, into a multi-family home. 

But the main issue is one Petersheim said he was told to include in his request. Petersheim’s property and the area around it for several miles, is zoned Agricultural A1. Currently, duplexes aren’t allowed in the A1 district, hence the request for a special use permit. But Petersheim also put in a request to change Buckingham County zoning, so that a multi-family housing duplex would be allowed as a special use in any Agricultural A1 Zoning District throughout the county. In talking last month with The Herald, Petersheim said he was asked by Buckingham County planning staff to request the zoning amendment, since nobody had applied for a duplex by special use permit before in the county’s agricultural area. 

It was that text amendment request that caused the planning commission members to recommend against approval, pointing out there’s nothing in the wording about limiting the number of families allowed or any regulation at all. Commission members also raised concerns about doing something like this that would affect the entire county without a more specific, detailed example of what is or isn’t allowed. 

So why did it come to supervisors? 

Back in May, Ivan Petersheim came before the Buckingham County planning commission, wanting to build duplexes in the area. The commission said no, rejecting the request because it would involve changing zoning across the entire county. Despite the commission’s rejection, Petersheim went and appealed his case to county supervisors earlier this month, asking for “a fair chance” to have his duplex plan heard by and voted on by them. At the time, Supervisors Chairman Joe Chambers said they would see what they could do. 

A couple weeks later, at their Monday, June 24 meeting, the planning commission was asked to somewhat reverse that earlier rejection, to at least give Petersheim the ability to present his plan to county supervisors. They did that by a 7-1 majority vote, agreeing to send the proposal to supervisors, but with a recommendation not to approve. The reason given by county staff was that the original decision to reject was in error, that the commission should have just given a recommendation not to approve. Normally, the planning commission only gives a rejection when someone doesn’t file a completed application or something else about the document is in error. In this case, the county attorney suggested the planning commission send it to the board of supervisors, and just give a recommendation not to approve. And that’s what they did. 

Residents oppose Buckingham County duplex project

Neighbors from around the Buckingham County duplex project also spoke up Monday, questioning why supervisors would consider changing countywide zoning. 

“The proposed zoning text amendment would change A-1 zoning countywide,” said James McCraig. He and his wife Linda live next door on Ridge Road. “It would add multi-family housing to add duplexes without regulations countywide. This is the reason the planning commission elected not to approve it.” 

His point was echoed by Mark Banton, another nearby property owner. 

“Why would the board approve this zoning text amendment when it would jeopardize all A-1 district properties in the county?” Banton asked. “Why change for one individual when it would affect many hardworking taxpaying landowners across the county? Clustered housing should not be allowed in A-1 agricultural areas.”  

Supervisors, meanwhile, were split. Harry Bryant was very vocal about being opposed to making any change in the zoning for this. He argued that making a change simply because someone wanted it, rather than a need in the county would make the rules useless. 

“If we’re gonna change the zoning ordinances for everybody’s wants, we may as well print these zoning ordinances on a roll of toilet paper and use it to blow your nose on,” Bryant said. Paul Garrett, Davis and Michael Palmore all agreed with the position. Cameron Gilliam and Danny Allen, however, saw things differently. 

A different perspective

“I believe somewhat in property rights,” Gilliam said. “I don’t see how each and every one of us could rent our basement out to somebody if we wanted to, and then tell Mr. Petersheim he couldn’t rent half the building out for one thing and half out for the other. My concern is telling a person what they can do with their property.”  

 Danny Allen, meanwhile, echoed what he had said last month, that he doesn’t see the project as a duplex at all.

“The only thing he’s doing, the front end would have two bedrooms, the back end would have one bedroom,” Allen said. “You’ve got a door in the back to pull into and a door in the front the other people pull into. A duplex is a giant building, it’s got two floors. We’re not talking about that. This is not something that’s gonna bother anybody. This is just a building.” 

Allen made a motion to allow the permit, but it was rejected, with only Gilliam in support.