Planning Commission Meeting – October 9, 2024: Rezonings, Quarry Heights, and Cash Proffers
Harrisonburg Planning Commission Meeting – October 9, 2024
The Harrisonburg Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Wednesday, October 9, 2024, at 6:00 PM in City Council Chambers. The seven-member commission considered nine public hearing items, including three rezoning requests, two zoning ordinance amendments, and five requests related to the proposed Quarry Heights development (comprehensive plan map amendment, rezoning, and three special use permits). The meeting also included public comments, reports from liaisons, and a discussion on public comment timing procedures.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes: The commission unanimously approved the minutes from the September 11, 2024 meeting (7-0).
Public Comments & Testimony
- Public Hearing on Quarry Heights (Items 3.e–3.i): Multiple residents spoke, many expressing concerns:
- Jay Zare (820 College Avenue) criticized the lack of community engagement and noted a 20-foot buffer on only one boundary; he requested a wider buffer along College Avenue.
- Kenneth Kettler supported the development, citing rising home prices (median sales price up 50% in four years) and the need for more housing to ease the mismatch.
- Isaac Woodmer (Rockingham Drive) praised the walking/biking infrastructure and modal filters.
- Chris Shanks (867 College Avenue) objected to the scale, citing years of construction noise, loss of tree canopy, and environmental impact; he urged an environmental impact study.
- Rachel Van Pater (890 College Avenue) noted the potential for 1,700 new cars and called for more consideration of current residents.
- Vonda Brown (820 College Avenue) stated the development would destroy her close-knit neighborhood.
- Russell Rohr (856 College Avenue) expressed concern about density but preferred residential over industrial.
- Several call-in speakers echoed concerns about traffic, tree loss, and lack of public engagement; one caller criticized the commission's handling of public comment timing.
- Public Comment (Item 4): Panayotis Giannakouros called in to criticize the chair's handling of public comment at a previous meeting, alleging arbitrary reduction of speaking time.
Discussion Items
- 3.a – Rezoning of 731 Jefferson Street (M-1 to R-3C): The property, an illegally converted duplex that lost nonconformity after a fire, was rezoned to allow a legal single-family dwelling with future potential for a duplex. Staff recommended approval; the applicant (through an interpreter) confirmed no immediate plans for expansion. Approved 7-0.
- 3.b – Rezoning of 1158 Rockingham Drive (R-1 to R-8C): The applicant sought to subdivide a lot to place his driveway entirely on his own property, requiring a smaller lot (8,505 sq ft) in the R-8 district. Proffers limited the new lot to one dwelling and set a 30-ft setback. A nearby neighbor raised parking concerns, but staff noted the lot would require one off-street space. Approved 7-0.
- 3.c – Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Cash Proffers: Staff presented a proposal to allow acceptance of cash proffers, but requested more time to research legal requirements, administrative processes, and impacts (e.g., on affordable housing). The commission voted 6-1 (Vice Mayor Dent dissenting) to table the item, with staff aiming for an update by December 2024.
- 3.d – Zoning Ordinance Amendment for R-8 Townhome Setbacks: The amendment allowed reduced side yard setbacks for townhomes in the R-8 district when sprinklers or fire-rated walls are installed, subject to a special use permit. Staff recommended approval; one public speaker objected to
Meeting Transcript
Hey Meg. Make the you guys have a mouse? Okay. Oh, yeah. Oh, okay. One minute. Do we have any motions or corrections for last month's minutes? We will move on to item three. We will move on to item 3A to consider a request to rezone 3 7 31 Jefferson Street. Good evening. So the first application that we have tonight is for a rezoning from M1 to R3C at 731 Jefferson Street. Here is a site map or a zoning map of the property showing that the property's M1 with R2 across Jefferson Street. Here is a land use guide map showing the land use guide for this neighborhood, which is neighborhood residential. And then an aerial of the site. And then here is a picture of the site from standing on Jefferson Street. A little bit of history about this property. And in that 1939 adoption, the property was zoned at that time, B2, which at the time was the business manufacturing and industrial district, which would have allowed for residential uses on the site at the time. And then in 1963, the city adopted a new zoning ordinance where the property was designated M1, which at that time was our light industrial district, which did not allow for residential uses. And then in April, brings us to today. In April and two April this year, the property unfortunately suffered a fire. And while the city was inspecting the property, staff began investigating whether the conformity was lost at any point during this process. And staff has reasons to believe that since this property became non-conforming, the structure had illegally been converted into a duplex, voiding its nonconformity. But uh the purpose of a non-conforming principle is just for knowledge for everyone, is uh to preserve rights of existing lawfully built structures or buildings and uses that are subject to the rules and policies that are part of our ordinance. Um after discussing with staff, once staff had determined that the structure had lost its nonconformity, um the applicant had decided to rezone the property to allow for at least one residential use to be existing, continuing on this property. Um with the district that they're requesting, the applicant can by right have the a single family residence and would have the ability in the future to convert it into a legal duplex. Um the applicant is profering that um they would dedicate a public sidewalk easement and a temporary construction easement along Jefferson Street to allow in the future for the city if they if the need arises that sidewalks um could be built within that public sidewalk easement and the construction easement for them to have the space to construct it. Um while the applicant's plan uh short-term plans are to bring the property into conformance to allow for a single family uh detached structure. The applicant has expressed interest in the possibility of converting the structure into either a duplex or possibly in the future, a uh multifamily unit uh with their lot area. They would have the ability to do that with the they would have they would like in the future to have that possibility in the R3 district. That would not be a by-right um request, they would be able to request a special use permit for that in the future. Um with the R3 district, um, with those flexibilities, uh it is more than the surrounding R2 neighbors neighborhood would have, but the map on the map on screen um shows that there are existing presumed non-conforming um structures that are of duplex nature or maybe due to lot size, it would not be conforming today, and also multifamily um structures that are existing. Um with all this, um staff does recommend approval of the rezoning request. Okay, thank you. Do we have any questions for staff uh before we invite the applicant up on this request? Is the applicant here? Yes, the applicant is here, and we do have an interpreter with them. Yes. So you're all right. Any questions for staff? Um yes. Yes. These three the last three lots that are M1 that are along the same street. Touch an R2. So in our comprehensive plan, this is still left as M1, correct? If I'm standing and looking at the house on the left or the right, left, only left. Top page top page bottom. Page top. They are they would still they are non-conforming residential uses in the M1 district now. Um this rezoning, they would remain M1, and then the however the comprehensive plan does designate them as well as the neighborhood comp uh neighborhood residential, similarly as this property. That's the one I should be looking at.
openpublica.com