OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Harrisonburg, Virginia/City Council & Planning Commission
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Harrisonburg Planning Commission Meeting: August 12, 2026

City Council & Planning Commission — Wednesday, August 12, 2026
BodyHarrisonburg, Virginia
SessionCity Council & Planning Commission
DateWednesday, August 12, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 3:07:02

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
0:01

Okay.

0:01

We're good.

0:02

All right.

0:03

I will call to order the August 12th, 2026 meeting of the Harrisonburg Planning Commission.

0:09

At this point, six of the seven members of Commission, uh, Commissioner Al Cindy is not present at this time, although we expect he may be here eventually, but at this point we have six of the seven members present and have a quorum.

0:22

Uh first order of business is review of the minutes for July 8th meeting.

0:38

I'll make a motion to accept the minutes to submit.

0:41

Second.

0:45

Motion made by Vice Chair Porter, seconded by Commissioner Kettler.

0:49

Any discussion?

0:51

All in favor say aye.

0:53

Aye.

0:54

Opposed no.

0:55

Minutes stand approved.

0:57

And then uh same uh review of the minutes of our July 21st, 2026 meeting.

1:09

Move to accept as presented.

1:13

Second.

1:15

Alright.

1:16

Um motion by Commissioner Seitz, seconded by Councilmember Kent.

1:21

Discussion.

1:23

All in favor say aye.

1:24

Aye.

1:24

Aye.

1:25

Opposed, no.

1:26

All right, minutes stand, those minutes stand approved, which gets us to the first order on a new business, a request for a special use permit at 387 Monticello Avenue.

1:38

Good evening, Commissioners.

1:39

My name is Meg Rebke.

1:40

I am a planner with community development.

1:44

The applicant this evening is requesting a special use permit to allow a short-term rental at 387 Monticello Avenue in the R1 district.

1:51

The surrounding properties are also zoned R1.

1:55

The comprehensive plan designates this project or the subject property as in the surrounding areas as low density residential.

2:03

And then here is an aerial of the site.

2:07

The applicant has recently purchased the property and is requesting to operate a short-term rental while continuing to live at the home.

2:13

The applicant would serve as the operator and has indicated the intent to make the rental available most weekend weekends throughout the year.

2:20

Because the proposed operation would exceed 90 calendar nights per year and would occur within an accessory building.

2:31

The applicant states that the available rental area would be limited to the lower floor of the accessory building and would include a bedroom, a living room, and one full bathroom.

2:40

The space could accommodate up to four guests, although the applicant has indicated it would be generally marketed to two to three guests at a time.

2:47

The applicant has also recently installed a small driveway from the existing public alley to provide guest parking and guest parking access to the accessory dwelling.

3:00

The zoning ordinance for reference provides two routes for short-term short-term transient lodging, a buy right homestead and the short-term rental authorized by special use permit.

3:10

A buy-right homestay must be located at the operator's primary residence, may be operated for up to 90 nights in the calendar year, and may host no more than four guests, and it has to be located within the principal dwelling.

3:21

As mentioned before, since this request is planning to operate more than 90 nights in a year and an accessory dwelling.

3:28

And in it and in an accessory dwelling, a special use permit would be required.

3:37

Staff recommends conditions limiting the short-term rental to the accessory structure as described in the application, and limiting it to two uh accommodation spaces, no and for no more than four guests at one time.

3:50

And we would also like to uh suggest conditioning to not require off street parking to be delineated as required.

3:58

Other conditions would include um requiring a pre-off pre-operation form and allowing planning commission or city council to recall the special use permit if it becomes a nuisance.

4:09

After review of this request, staff believes that it share similar characteristics with other applications for short-term rentals that have received approvals and staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the conditions.

4:21

Okay, thank you.

4:22

Uh questions of staff.

4:31

Thank you.

4:31

Uh at this point we'll invite the appropriate representative to speak.

4:40

Hello.

4:41

So we're planning to rent out the Oh oh please state your name and state name and address for the record.

4:47

My name's Kate Denby, 387 Monticello.

4:49

Peter Denby, 387 Monticello.

4:52

So our intent is to rent out the we call it the casita behind our house.

4:56

That is, as I said, just a bedroom, a living room, and a bathroom.

5:00

There's no kitchen.

5:01

The casita faces the back of our house, so we're not we don't want anybody rowdy in there.

5:08

We don't want parties or anything like that.

5:10

The intent is for folks who are coming to visit JMU, coming to visit downtown or visiting the national park.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use██████████████████████████████████████████42%
Zoning█████████████13%
Affordable Housing██████████10%
Public Engagement████████8%
Active Transportation███████7%
Engineering And Infrastructure██████6%
Parks and Recreation████4%
Parking Policy███3%
Procedural██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Harrisonburg Planning Commission Meeting: August 12, 2026

The Harrisonburg Planning Commission convened on Wednesday, August 12, 2026, at 6:00 PM in the City Council Chambers with six members present (Richard Baugh, Chair; Shannon Porter, Vice Chair; KC Kettler; Rob Jezior; Randy Seitz; and Laura Dent, Councilmember). Commissioner Heja Alsindi was absent. The Commission reviewed and acted on four public hearing items and one action item, forwarding all to City Council.

Consent Calendar

  • The Commission unanimously approved the minutes from the July 8, 2026 meeting (motion by Porter, seconded by Kettler) and the July 21, 2026 meeting (motion by Seitz, seconded by Dent).

Public Hearings

4.a. Short-Term Rental Special Use Permit (387 Monticello Avenue)

  • Project: Caitlin and Peter Denbigh requested a Special Use Permit (SUP) to operate a short-term rental (STR) in an accessory structure on their property, seeking to host up to four guests for more than 90 nights a year.
  • Applicant Position: The Denbighs stated they are respectful neighbors committed to enforcing strict rules, minimizing noise, and directing parking to a new alley-accessible lot.
  • Public Testimony: Neighbor Dave McCarty (366 Monticello Ave) opposed the permit, arguing the STR constitutes a business in an R-1 district, raising concerns about parking, transient guests, and lack of oversight. Heidi Klim (418 Monticello Ave) questioned the "tipping point" for neighborhood stability and who would manage problems when owners are away.
  • Commission Discussion: Commissioners characterized the request as a creative use of property to improve housing affordability without removing a dwelling unit from the long-term market. Parking concerns were noted, but the limited scale of the operation was seen as manageable. The trend toward liberalizing accessory structure rules was acknowledged.
  • Outcome: Recommended for approval to City Council (6-0). Motion by Kettler, seconded by Dent.

4.b. Indoor Recreational Facility Special Use Permit (291 West Wolfe Street / 336 West Market Street)

  • Project: VG Harrisonburg Storage LLC sought an SUP for indoor recreational and leisure-time activities (e.g., rock climbing, pickleball) in a former industrial building, while operating a by-right self storage facility on the same site.
  • Applicant Position: Benjamin Ho requested the Commission broaden the list of allowed uses in the permit conditions to attract tenants, suggesting specific exclusions (e.g., no shooting ranges, no go-karts, no paintball) rather than a narrow inclusion list.
  • Public Testimony: Neighbor Mary Boitnott (55 N Brook Ave) raised concerns about inadequate parking, a problem she recalled from the site's prior industrial use. Carina Young (29 Shenandoah Ave) expressed excitement about the potential for pickleball and rock climbing.
  • Commission Discussion: The key debate centered on whether Condition 2 should be defined by specific inclusions, specific exclusions, or a broader "substantially similar" standard. Staff was directed to craft broader language reflecting the discussion for City Council's consideration.
  • Outcome: Recommended for approval to City Council (6-0). Motion by Kettler, seconded by Jezior.

4.c. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Northeast Neighborhood Small Area Plan)

  • Project: Staff requested the incorporation of the Northeast Neighborhood Small Area Plan (SAP) into the Comprehensive Plan as Appendix A, the city's first small area plan developed through the Smart Growth America Community Connectors grant.
  • Proponent Positions: Karen Thomas, Director of the Northeast Neighborhood Association, and Monica Robinson, representing the Shenandoah Valley Black Heritage Project, strongly endorsed the plan, stating it represents over three years of community engagement aimed at rebuilding trust and reversing the impacts of urban renewal.
  • Public Testimony: City Resident Panayotis Giannakouros warned against Goal 8.5 (proactive code enforcement), arguing it establishes legal pillars that could be used for future displacement, citing a lack of safeguards against a repeat of urban renewal.
  • Commission Discussion: Members inquired how the plan would influence CIP prioritization, zoning ordinance updates, and departmental awareness. Staff affirmed that Public Works already uses the plan for grant applications and committed to continued engagement with the neighborhood during the zoning rewrite.
  • Outcome: Recommended for approval to City Council (6-0). Motion by Seitz, seconded by Kettler.

4.d. Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Poultry Hatchery Definition)

  • Project: Staff proposed amending the Zoning Ordinance to define "poultry hatchery" and codify it as a by-right use in the M-1 General Industrial District, correcting an unintentional non-conformity created by a February 2026 amendment.
  • Discussion: Councilmember Dent clarified the distinction between hatcheries (live poultry) and table egg production. Staff confirmed coordination with the Virginia Poultry Federation, which raised no concerns.
  • Outcome: Recommended for approval to City Council (6-0). Motion by Kettler, seconded by Dent.

Action Item

5.a. Subdivision Ordinance Variance (704 North Liberty Street)

  • Project: Jose Antonio Lopez Montiel requested a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to waive the requirement to construct a public sidewalk along the North Liberty Street frontage of a proposed four-lot subdivision intended for workforce housing.
  • Applicant Position: Engineer Gil Colman argued the $5,000–$10,000 sidewalk cost represents a significant burden for a small-scale infill project, advocating for a city-funded approach through the Housing Fund to avoid encumbering affordable housing development. Mr. Lopez noted the city previously built sidewalk on adjacent West Washington Street without an easement on his property.
  • Public Testimony: Panayotis Giannakouros supported the variance, contrasting the cost burden with the city's recent multi-million dollar land donation for housing and arguing the public should bear the cost of infrastructure.
  • Staff Recommendation: Denial. Staff found the applicant had not demonstrated a topographical hardship and argued that requiring sidewalk construction incrementally advances the Comprehensive Plan and pedestrian network goals.
  • Commission Discussion: The vote split sharply. Vice Chair Porter, Commissioner Seitz, Commissioner Jezior, and Councilmember Dent supported the variance, viewing the requirement as an undue burden on small-scale workforce housing and preferring the city assume responsibility for such infrastructure. Chair Baugh and Commissioner Kettler opposed, arguing that waiving the requirement undermines a key tool for building the pedestrian network and sets a poor precedent.
  • Outcome: Recommended for approval to City Council (4-2). Motion by Seitz, seconded by Jezior. Voting in favor: Porter, Seitz, Jezior, Dent. Voting against: Baugh, Kettler.

Key Outcomes

  • The Commission forwarded five items to the Harrisonburg City Council. Four items received a unanimous recommendation; the Subdivision Variance was recommended with a 4-2 split.
  • Next Steps: All items are scheduled for a City Council public hearing on September 8, 2026.

Meeting Transcript

Okay. We're good. All right. I will call to order the August 12th, 2026 meeting of the Harrisonburg Planning Commission. At this point, six of the seven members of Commission, uh, Commissioner Al Cindy is not present at this time, although we expect he may be here eventually, but at this point we have six of the seven members present and have a quorum. Uh first order of business is review of the minutes for July 8th meeting. I'll make a motion to accept the minutes to submit. Second. Motion made by Vice Chair Porter, seconded by Commissioner Kettler. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed no. Minutes stand approved. And then uh same uh review of the minutes of our July 21st, 2026 meeting. Move to accept as presented. Second. Alright. Um motion by Commissioner Seitz, seconded by Councilmember Kent. Discussion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, no. All right, minutes stand, those minutes stand approved, which gets us to the first order on a new business, a request for a special use permit at 387 Monticello Avenue. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Meg Rebke. I am a planner with community development. The applicant this evening is requesting a special use permit to allow a short-term rental at 387 Monticello Avenue in the R1 district. The surrounding properties are also zoned R1. The comprehensive plan designates this project or the subject property as in the surrounding areas as low density residential. And then here is an aerial of the site. The applicant has recently purchased the property and is requesting to operate a short-term rental while continuing to live at the home. The applicant would serve as the operator and has indicated the intent to make the rental available most weekend weekends throughout the year. Because the proposed operation would exceed 90 calendar nights per year and would occur within an accessory building. The applicant states that the available rental area would be limited to the lower floor of the accessory building and would include a bedroom, a living room, and one full bathroom. The space could accommodate up to four guests, although the applicant has indicated it would be generally marketed to two to three guests at a time. The applicant has also recently installed a small driveway from the existing public alley to provide guest parking and guest parking access to the accessory dwelling. The zoning ordinance for reference provides two routes for short-term short-term transient lodging, a buy right homestead and the short-term rental authorized by special use permit. A buy-right homestay must be located at the operator's primary residence, may be operated for up to 90 nights in the calendar year, and may host no more than four guests, and it has to be located within the principal dwelling. As mentioned before, since this request is planning to operate more than 90 nights in a year and an accessory dwelling. And in it and in an accessory dwelling, a special use permit would be required. Staff recommends conditions limiting the short-term rental to the accessory structure as described in the application, and limiting it to two uh accommodation spaces, no and for no more than four guests at one time. And we would also like to uh suggest conditioning to not require off street parking to be delineated as required. Other conditions would include um requiring a pre-off pre-operation form and allowing planning commission or city council to recall the special use permit if it becomes a nuisance. After review of this request, staff believes that it share similar characteristics with other applications for short-term rentals that have received approvals and staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the conditions. Okay, thank you. Uh questions of staff. Thank you. Uh at this point we'll invite the appropriate representative to speak.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com