Harrisonburg Planning Commission Meeting Summary - February 18, 2025
Harrisonburg Planning Commission Meeting Summary - February 18, 2025
The Harrisonburg Planning Commission met on Tuesday, February 18, 2025, at 6:00 PM in City Council Chambers. The meeting included public hearings on three rezoning requests and a zoning ordinance amendment, as well as consideration of the FY2025-2030 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The commission took votes on all items, with recommendations forwarded to City Council.
Consent Calendar
- Approved the minutes from the January 8, 2025 Planning Commission meeting (5-0).
Public Comments & Testimony
- Item 4a (Smithland Road rezoning): Multiple residents spoke in opposition. Dan Rubly (1251 Smithland Road) presented a petition signed by 25 of 27 neighboring property owners, citing concerns about density, loss of tree canopy, traffic safety, and incompatibility with the existing low-density neighborhood. Tad Williams (Harrisonburg apartment resident) opposed the rezoning, arguing it would cost the city more in services than tax revenue. Devin Overdorf (1256 Smithland Road) noted the lack of communication about the project and the impact on wildlife.
- Item 4b (Mosby Road proffer amendment): Mark Slack (applicant, Beverly Jails Searles Foundation) spoke in support, explaining the need to amend proffer 3 to apply for Section 811 rental assistance for 11 units for disabled residents.
- Item 4c (Zoning Ordinance amendment): Quentin Callahan (attorney for applicant) argued for a 5-foot setback, citing limitations due to the 30% rule for accessory buildings. He noted that variance requests had been granted historically for similar properties on Bruce Street.
- No public comments were received during the open public comment period at the end of the meeting.
Discussion Items
4a. Rezoning Request – 1211 and 1231 Smithland Road
- Applicant: Janis Brown Enterprises LLC (represented by David Gast of Riverbend and Connor O'Donnell).
- Proposal: Rezone two parcels (~10 acres) from R-1 to R-8 to allow up to 70 single-family detached homes (DR Horton Express series, ~1,600 sq. ft., priced around $400,000).
- Staff Position: Recommended denial, citing insufficient planning, concerns with street network design, intersection spacing, and lack of a detailed site survey.
- Commission Discussion: Commissioners noted the site's constraints (topography, powerline easements) and staff's concerns about layout and variance needs. A motion to recommend approval failed after being withdrawn; a motion to table (4-1) passed, allowing the applicant to continue working with staff.
- Vote: 4-1 to table (Commissioner Dent voted no, preferring to move forward).
4b. Proffer Amendment – 210, 290, and 280 West Mosby Road
- Applicant: Daniel W. and Nancy R. Brubaker Trustees.
- Request: Amend proffer 3 of the 2023 approved rezoning (R-5C) to reference the Fair Housing Act 55+ exemption instead of requiring all 82 age-restricted units to have at least one occupant aged 55+. This would allow the applicant to apply for Section 811 rental assistance for disabled residents (11 of 84 units in one building; original two 82-unit buildings adjusted to 84 and 80 units).
- Staff Position: Recommended approval, noting the amendment aligns with federal law and does not change the overall age-restricted intent.
- Commission Discussion: Supported unanimously; Vice Chair Finnegan moved to recommend approval.
- Vote: 5-0 to recommend approval to City Council (due back March 11, 2025).
4c. Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Accessory Building Setbacks in UR District
- Applicant: Miranda Ebersold (260 Franklin Street).
- Request: Reduce the minimum setback for accessory buildings on through lots in the Urban Residential (UR) district from 25 feet to 5 feet.
- Staff Position: Recommended denial of 5 feet but supported a 10-foot setback (matching R-5 and R-8 districts), citing concerns about sight lines and potential obstructions.
- Commission Discussion: Debate centered on the impact of the setback on the 30% rule for accessory building size. Staff clarified that the amendment does not change the 30% rule; the 10-foot setback allows more flexibility than the original 25. Several commissioners noted the need to revisit the 30% rule in the future.
- Vote: 5-0 to recommend approval of the 10-foot setback as proposed by staff.
5a. FY2025-2030 Capital Improvement Program
- Presenter: Mr. Fletcher (City staff).
- Details: A clerical error on page 20 corrected ($4.6 million overstatement due to Fire Station 4 funding). Total CIP needs approximately $28 million per year; general fund covers ~50%. Departmental breakdowns show Public Works and Water as largest. Year-by-year projections illustrate significant unfunded needs.
- Commission Discussion: Commissioners Finnegan and Dent raised concerns about the impact of federal funding uncertainty on grants and rebates. A motion to approve was made by Councilmember Dent.
- Vote: 5-0 to recommend approval.
Other Reports
- Rockingham County Planning Commission Liaison (Alsindi): Reported on the February 4 meeting, including CIP focus on schools/water/sewer, a B-2C to B-1 rezoning involving a well, an agricultural-forestal district withdrawal case, and a BX district ordinance amendment requiring water/sewer and location in an urban growth area.
- City Council Report (Dent): Recap of January 14 and January 28 meetings, including approval of HRHA revenue bonds for the Mosby Road project (80 multifamily + 84 age-restricted), cash proffer ordinance (4-1 vote), data centers as special use in M-1, and various board appointments.
Other Matters – Clarification on 30% Rule
- Mr. Fletcher presented a correction regarding the earlier discussion on the 30% rule for accessory buildings. He explained that a 10-foot setback results in less building area counted toward the 30% rule, not more, contrary to what was stated during the hearing. This clarification did not affect the vote.
Key Outcomes
- Consent Calendar: Minutes approved (5-0).
- Zoning Ordinance Amendment (4c): Recommended approval with 10-foot setback (5-0).
- Smithland Road Rezoning (4a): Tabled (4-1) to allow further work with staff.
- Mosby Road Proffer Amendment (4b): Recommended approval (5-0), to be heard by City Council on March 11, 2025.
- Capital Improvement Program (5a): Recommended approval (5-0).
- Next Meeting: Scheduled for March 2025 with eight items anticipated.
Meeting Transcript
They've uh they've asked if they move them that we let them take that up as the first item under new business. Umce we've got published agenda that would require a motion and approval to change the agenda. Is that moved? Second. Moved and seconded by Councilmember Dent and Leicester Finnegan. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed no. Cheer votes aye. And so we will order will take up is what's on your printed agenda is item 4C and then 4A and 4B. So that means the first item we take out was a request from Miranda ever sold to attend to amend zoning ordinance for setbacks in the UR district. Good evening. Yeah. All right, zoning ordinance amendment for reduced setbacks for through lots in the UR district. Through lots are lots where both the front and rear yards face the public street. The zoning ordinance requires that the rear yard setbacks on through lots be subject to the minimum front yard setback regulations. In the UR district, the minimum front yard setback is 25 feet, therefore the minimum rear yard setback is 25 feet. For example, this is Ashtree Lane. The areas in blue are the UR district. The lots that are outlined in red are through lots. They're addressed Franklin Street on the top and Campbell Street on the bottom. The lots outlined in yellow are addressed on Ashtree Lane. So zoning ordinance section 103114A requires that accessory buildings and residential districts be located in the rear yard to not occupy more than 30% of the required rear yard and be not less than five feet from the side and rear lot lines. Zoning ordinance section 103114D prohibits accessory buildings in residential districts from being located between the principal building and a public street, except that for through lots, the accessory building may be located within the established rear yard between the principal building and a public street and meets principal building setbacks. The principal building minimum front yard setback in the UR district is 25 feet. Thus, an accessory building on a through lot in the UR district shall be located in the established rear yard, shall be no closer than five feet from the side property lines and no closer than 25 feet from the public street right of way line along the established rear yard. If the zoning ordinance is amended as presented by the applicant, it would allow for accessory buildings on through lots in the UR district to be constructed five feet from the public street right of way along the established rear yard. This is a zoning map of the UR district. All the areas in blue are the UR. The lots outlined in purple are all through lots. So in 2023, the Board of Zoning Appeals heard the applicant's request for four variances to deviate from the rear and side yard setbacks, the requirement that accessory buildings not exceed 30% of the required rear yard. Um and the applicant proposed to construct a detached garage in the rear yard on the property addressed as 260 Franklin Street. The requested variances would have allowed the applicant to construct the garage one foot from the side and rear yard setbacks. The BCA is required to act in accordance with the standards of Virginia Code and may only grant the variance if the zoning ordinance would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property or that granting the variance would alleviate a hardship due to the physical conditions relating to the property. The code references specific criteria that must be met for an application to meet the standards of the variance. Staff evaluated the BZA application through the variance standards and determined that the application did not meet criteria. The BCA denied the request. So while the BCA denied that request, it should be noticed that they granted three other requests, similar setback requests along this street. In 1991, uh variance requests was granted for the property located at 272 Franklin. In 2011, a variance request was granted to the property at 254 Franklin. And on January 7, 2019, a variance request was granted to the property at 2018 Franklin. Staff acknowledges that there are buildings that are non-conforming to setbacks, that the property owners have received various that some property owners have received variances from the VCA approving reduced setbacks, and there are structures likely abutting or encroaching in the public street right away on East Bruce Street. Nonetheless, staff does not believe that a five-foot setback is appropriate for the lots in the UR district. Structures that abut or encroach on a public street right of way at times can impede site distance for neighboring entrances and driveways. In some cases, race residents may block the public street right of way while opening and closing garage doors or by parking vehicles in front of their garages, creating obstructions and potentially hazardous situations for other users of the street. If there is a desire to reduce the setbacks for these types of properties, staff believes a more appropriate and uniform reduced setback would be no less than 10 feet. A ten-foot setback would mimic the re existing permissible front yard setback in the R5 and the R8 districts. A ten-foot setback would also be more reasonable given that it can accommodate more flexibility for the property owner while maintaining better lines of sight distance and allow for future street improvements to occur without impacting more structures. If the zoning ordinance is amended as requested by the applicant, it would allow for accessory buildings to be constructed five feet from the rear yard property lines that front on public streets.
openpublica.com