town of strasburg...planning commission meeting were approved on a motion by commissioner nicholson...

Town of Strasburg

Planning Commission Strasburg Town Hall, 174 E King St Thursday, June 14th, 2018, 7:00 PM

Planning Commission Members: Robert Flanagan, Chair Hank Dean, Vice-Chair James Massey Taralyn Nicholson Vince Poling Emily Reynolds Scott Terndrup, Council Representative Staff Contacts: John Settle, Planning & Zoning Administrator Amy Keller, Clerk of Council

Strasburg Planning Commission Thursday, June 14th, 2018

If you require any type of reasonable accommodation as a result of physical, sensory, or mental disability in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Amy Keller, Clerk of Council, at 1-(540)-465-9197, or [email protected]. Three (3) days of notice is required.

Agenda Call to Order: Chairperson Flanagan Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes

1.) Tuesday, May 22nd, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Citizen Comments Public Hearing:

1.) Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment (UDO Section 3.12.3) Description: To receive public comment on a potential text amendment to include the Land-Based Classification Standard (LBCS) Use Code 2113, “Bicycle, Motorcycle, ATV, etc.,” in UDO Sec 3.12.3, Community Commercial Zoning District Use Matrix, as a use permitted by a Special Use Permit (SUP) only. Staff Contact: John Settle, Planning & Zoning Administrator

2.) Site Plan Application: 793 Capon Rd Description: To receive public comment on a Site Plan application for 793 Capon Rd (TMP# 016A099) to allow for the conversion of an existing accessory building into an accessory dwelling, submitted concurrently with a Special Use Permit (SUP) application. Staff Contact: John Settle, Planning & Zoning Administrator

3.) SUP Application: 793 Capon Rd Description: To receive public comment on a SUP application for 793 Capon Rd (TMP# 016A099) to allow for the conversion of an existing accessory building into an accessory dwelling. Staff Contact: John Settle, Planning & Zoning Administrator

Action Items:

1.) Site Plan Application: 793 Capon Rd Description: A Site Plan application for 793 Capon Rd (TMP# 016A099) to allow for the conversion of an existing accessory building into an accessory dwelling, submitted concurrently with a Special Use Permit (SUP) application. Staff Contact: John Settle, Planning & Zoning Administrator

2.) SUP Application: 793 Capon Rd Description: A SUP application for 793 Capon Rd (TMP# 016A099) to allow for the conversion of an existing accessory building into an accessory dwelling. Staff Contact: John Settle, Planning & Zoning Administrator

Adjournment

mailto:[email protected]

Strasburg Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, May 22nd, 2018

Page 1 of 5

MINUTES OF THE STRASBURG PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON

TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2018 AT 7 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE

STRASBURG TOWN HALL.

PLANNNG COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice-Chairperson Dean and Commissioners,

Massey, Nicholson, Reynolds, Poling, and Terndrup. Absent: Chairperson Flanagan.

STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Pearson and Planning & Zoning Administrator Settle.

Vice-Chairperson Dean called the meeting to order and reviewed the agenda.

Approval of Agenda: The agenda were approved as presented.

Approval of Tuesday, April 24th, 2018 Minutes: The minutes of the Tuesday, April 24th, 2018

Planning Commission meeting were approved on a motion by Commissioner Nicholson and a

second by Vice-Mayor Terndrup. With no discussion, the motion passed unanimously.

Citizen Comments: None.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Final Plat Application for 245 Hite Ln:

P&Z Administrator Settle said that the purpose of the public hearing was to receive public

comment on a Final Plat application for the Homewood Development, located at 245 Hite Ln

(TMP# 016A162). The property is currently zoned Medium-Density Residential (MDR), and the

applicant is proposing to subdivide the property for the construction and sale of new and existing

homes.

The Public Hearing opened at 7:08 P.M.

There being no speakers, the Public Hearing closed at 7:10 P.M.

Site Plan Application for 117 High St:


comment on a Site Plan application for 117 High St (TMP# 025A3A257) to operate a seasonal bed

and breakfast inn, submitted concurrently with a special use permit (SUP) application.


There being no speakers, the Public Hearing closed at 7:14 P.M.

Special Use Permit (SUP) Application for 117 High St:


comment on a SUP application for 117 High St (TMP# 025A3A257) to operate a seasonal bed and

breakfast inn.


Virginia Aliotti, of 139 High St said that she wanted to make it clear that the proposed project was


Page 2 of 5

a “bike and bed” and not a “bed and breakfast inn” as all of the advertisement literature had stated.

Planning & Zoning Administrator Settle said that the bed and breakfast inn is a defined and

general use code in the Town’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and that the more

specialized “bike and bed” use, as described, is covered by that use code.

There being no additional speakers, the Public Hearing closed at 7:22 P.M.

ACTION ITEMS:

Final Plat Application for 245 Hite Ln:

Town Manager Pearson gave the staff report for this application.

Commissioner Massey expressed concerns over drainage, feeling that the proposed provisions

would not be adequate.

Town Manager Pearson stated that staff’s opinion contradicted his concerns, and that the

provisions proposed were up to specifications.

Dennie Dunlap, of Dice Engineering PLC echoed staff’s findings.

Town Manager Pearson went on to say that the Virginia Departments of Environmental Quality

and Transportation (DEQ and VDOT), in addition to the Shenandoah County Department of Fire

and Rescue felt that the proposed provisions were sufficient.

Commissioner Poling asked if the uncertainty over maintenance of the gravel road linking

Homewood Way to Fort Bowman Rd had been resolved.

Town Manager Pearson stated that this is now detailed in the Homeowners’ Association’s

(HOA’s) covenants and restrictions.

Commissioner Nicholson asked what would happen if the HOA ever became inactive.

Town Manager Pearson stated that the Town has provisions for such an instance, but that the

conditions proposed in the covenants and restrictions appear to be sufficient.

Commissioner Poling asked if the covenants and restrictions contained provisions to escalate the

HOA fees to cover road maintenance.

Town Manager Pearson responded in the affirmative.

Commissioner Terndrup expressed concerns over the maintenance of the road, retention pond,

and retaining wall.

Town Manager Pearson answered that the wall is owned and well-maintained by an adjacent

property owner, and that the road and retention pond maintenance are detailed in the HOA’s

restrictions.

Commissioner Terndrup again expressed his concerns over road maintenance, and more

specifically questioned the road’s ability to withstand erosion.


Page 3 of 5

Dennie Dunlap, of Dice Engineering PLC stated that they have upgraded the quality of stone to

be utilized for the road, which will bolster its resistance to erosion.

Commissioner Massey stated that he had reservations concerning access to the development if

Hite Ln were ever closed.

Town Manager Pearson stated that the purpose of the gravel road is to allow for access to the

subdivision in the event that Hite Ln is ever closed- Town Manager Pearson went on to say that

most of the topics concerning transportation, access, erosion, etc. will be addressed during a second

Technical Review Committee (TRC) meeting, to be scheduled prior to the application’s progression

to Town Council, and that staff does not anticipate any major changes to the plans to result from

this meeting.

Commissioner Terndrup asked if VDOT had already reviewed the gravel road.

Town Manager Pearson responded that VDOT is aware of the gravel road, but will not maintain

it.

Commissioner Terndrup asked if Hite Ln met VDOT standards.

Dennie Dunlap, of Dice Engineering PLC stated that it met VDOT’s standards for roads in

mountainous terrain.

Commissioner Terndrup asked if the open space illustrated in the plans is actually useable.

Town Manager Pearson stated that the proposed development’s open space met the minimum

standards imposed by the UDO.

Commissioner Terndrup asked if the open space was reasonably flat.

Town Manager Pearson stated that it should be so, and gave a description of the topography of

the site.

Commissioner Terndrup asked if there would be a future trail connection to Island Farm Rd?

Town Manager Pearson stated that this is not a part of the proposed project, but that the dedication

of that easement to the Town was to be recorded as a part of this application, and that no

improvement of that easement was to occur.

Dennie Dunlap, of Dice Engineering PLC gave a description of the specifics of the easement.

Commissioner Terndrup stated that the future connection to Island Farm Rd is a major goal for

the Town.

Commissioner Nicholson asked when work would begin on the improvement of the easement.

Town Manager Pearson restated that no improvement of the easement was to occur as a part of

the application, and that securing the easement is the first step to any trail project.

Commissioner Poling stated that without an easement, you cannot build a trail.

Commissioner Terndrup asked if the financial impact of this project on the Town had been


Page 4 of 5

considered.

Town Manager Pearson stated that the reduction in the total number of proposed units offsets the

financial impact that would have been experienced as a result of the initially-proposed development

plans.

Commissioner Terndrup asked if this project had been proffered, and if so, if the proffers still

existed.

Town Manager Pearson answered that it had been proffered with cash proffers, which had been

eliminated.

Consensus among the Commissioners was to recommend their approval of the Final Plat

application to Town Council, with a motion to that effect entertained by Commissioner Poling

and seconded by Commissioner Reynolds.

Site Plan and SUP Applications for 117 High St:

P&Z Administrator Settle gave the staff report for both applications simultaneously, owing to

their intertwined nature.

Commissioner Nicholson asked if the SUP would be transferred to subsequent owners.

P&Z Administrator Settle responded in the affirmative.

Virginia Aliotti, of 117 High St expressed her support of the applicant’s proposed project, and

stated that the property didn’t have to remain a bed and breakfast inn following sale to subsequent

owners.

Vice-Chairperson Dean asked what laws, rules, and regulations would apply to the property’s

kitchen.

P&Z Administrator Settle responded by stating that the applicant had already consulted with

Shenandoah County and the Virginia Department of Health, who informed him that he is allowed

to serve light refreshments and order food for his patrons without having to substantially improve

his kitchen- this was a part of the reason why the applicant did not want to serve breakfast on the

premises.

Kevin Watson, of 117 High St echoed P&Z Administrator Settle’s statements.

Kenneth Cherrix, of 633 Christiansen Dr asked if alcohol could be served, if the applications are

approved.

P&Z Administrator Settle responded that this could only occur following necessary permitting

from the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority.

Kenneth Cherrix, of 633 Christiansen Dr asked what impact this potential project would have

on the property in question.

Town Manager Pearson responded that the appropriate agency to direct that question to would be

the Shenandoah County Commissioner of the Revenue’s Office.


Page 5 of 5

Consensus among the Commissioners was to recommend their approval of the SUP

application to Town Council, with a motion by Commissioner Poling (seconded by

Commissioner Nicholson) to approve the Site Plan application, contingent on the approval of

the SUP application by Town Council.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:42 P.M.

[email protected] - Planning Commission - Thursday, June 14th, 2018 – 793 Capon Rd - 1-(540)-465-9197

MEMORANDUM

To: Town of Strasburg, Virginia Planning Commission

From: John Settle, Planning & Zoning Administrator

Date: Monday, June 11th, 2018 Re: Thursday, June 14th, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting, 793 Capon Rd Site Plan Application

Overview: This application is for a Site Plan to allow for the conversion of an existing accessory

building into an accessory dwelling (LBCS 1130) at 793 Capon Rd (TMP# 016A099). The

property is zoned Agriculture/Rural Residential (Ag/RR), comprises approximately .663 acres,

and has frontage on both Capon Rd and John Marshall Hwy. The applicants, Paul and Sheila Rush,

are desirous of converting an existing, dilapidated storage shed into a “mother-in-law suite” to

accommodate an elderly relative. This action will take place during a simultaneous restoration of

the existing, dilapidated primary dwelling.

Applicable Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Sections for Staff Review:

3.7 Agriculture/Rural Residential (Ag/RR) District

The applicants’ proposed project entails the creation of an accessory dwelling (LBCS 1130) at the

property, which is a use permitted only by a Special Use Permit (SUP) in the Ag/RR zoning

district. The applicant has submitted an application for a SUP concurrently with this Site Plan

application. The existing and planned configuration of this accessory building does not conflict

with any of the development standards contained within this section.

4.20 Transportation

The proposed application does not conflict with this section of the UDO, and all vehicular

accessways proposed therein allow traffic to channel conveniently, safely, and in a manner which

minimizes traffic friction and promotes free traffic flow. The proposed layout also eliminates a

nonconformity, which in this case is the lack of an existing driveway.

4.21 Off-Street Parking and Loading

The applicants are proposing to dedicate a total of four (4) off-street parking spaces to

accommodate both their property’s existing use as a single-family detached dwelling, in addition

to their desired use as an accessory dwelling. As required through UDO Sec 4.21.3.B, four (4)

nine-foot-by-eighteen foot (9’x18’) parking spaces have been dedicated to accommodate the two

(2) residential dwelling units proposed through this application. Additionally, all parking areas

(as well as the aforementioned driveway) will be paved with (at least) a tar-and-chip surface.



6.1 Accessory Dwellings

This application proposes a single accessory dwelling to be occupied rent-free by an elderly

relative of the owner/applicants, who will reside in the primary dwelling. The proposed accessory

dwelling unit will consist of approximately 556.6 square feet of finished living space, which does

not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the primary dwelling’s 1,657 square feet of finished living space.

The proposed layout and configuration of the proposed accessory dwelling is in harmony with

adjacent dwellings and development patterns. As stated previously, the applicant is rehabilitating

an existing storage shed into an accessory dwelling- furthermore, the accessory dwelling emulates

the appearance of another existing accessory building on the property, and will also utilize similar

exterior building materials present in the primary dwelling. Although there is an abundance of

single-family detached dwellings near the property in question, within 350’ is an existing,

nonconforming two-family dwelling (896 Capon Rd), and within 650’ is an existing,

nonconforming multi-family dwelling (636 Capon Rd) featuring at least three (3) residential

dwelling units- neither of which are reported to have caused any nuisances or hardships to adjacent

properties. In addition, an existing subdivision of two-family dwellings is located 350’ south of

the property in question, which is also not known to have troubled the Capon Road neighborhood.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application contingent on Town

Council’s approval of the concurrently-submitted Special Use Permit (SUP) application.

Applicable UDO Sections for Planning Commission Review:

2.31.1 Purpose

A. This section enables the Town of Strasburg and the Applicant to collaborate in the

processing of certain development approvals in order to enhance planning and timely,

integrated processing and review. The Site Plan is intended to provide an overview of the

Applicant’s projected land development. In this context, the Site Plan shall be used to

determine if the proposed development is in compliance with current statutes, ordinances,

regulations, the Town of Strasburg comprehensive plan, the UDO, and specific or

neighborhood plans, and other applicable local, regional, state, and federal requirements.

B. The purpose of these requirements is to promote the orderly development of certain

activities in the Town and to ensure that such activities are developed in a manner

harmonious with surrounding properties and in the interest of the general public welfare.

More specifically, the Site Plan shall be used to review the following:

1. Compatibility with the environment;

2. Ability of the traffic circulation system to provide for the convenient and safe internal

movement of vehicles and pedestrians;

3. Quantity, quality, utility, and type of project improvements;

4. Required community facilities;

5. Location and adequacy of the project's provision for drainage and utilities.

2.31.2 Prerequisite to Commencing Development

No clearing, grubbing, grading of the site or construction of infrastructure shall commence unless

a Site Plan has been submitted and approved by the Planning Commission. A Site Plan is required

for:



A. All buildings, structures, or uses as noted in this UDO.

B. The application proposes three or more residential dwelling units;

C. The application will generate (upon build-out) more than 30 vehicle trips per day;

D. The application contains land designated for nonresidential use;

E. The application requests rezoning or approval of a floating zone, “PD” (Planned

Development) district, or a plan amendment;

F. The application requires a SUP;

G. Where a change of use of an existing structure requires additional parking or other

requirements applicable to a new use.

H. The application requires regional, state, or federal review of approval or is subject to state

or federal law; or

I. The land is located within an historic, agricultural, environmentally sensitive, or

transportation corridor district.

Attachments:

(1) Survey and plans of the existing and proposed conditions on the property.

(2) Illustrations showing the harmoniousness of the proposed accessory dwelling with the

surrounding built environment.


[email protected] - Planning Commission – Thursday, June 14th, 2018 – 793 Capon Rd - 1-(540)-465-9197

MEMORANDUM

To: Town of Strasburg, Virginia Planning Commission

From: John Settle, Planning & Zoning Administrator

Date: Monday, June 11th, 2018 Re: Thursday, June 14th, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting, 793 Capon Rd Special Use Permit (SUP) Application

Overview: This application is for a SUP to allow for the conversion of an existing accessory

building into an accessory dwelling (LBCS 1130) at 793 Capon Rd (TMP# 016A099). The

property is zoned Agriculture/Rural Residential (Ag/RR), comprises approximately .663 acres,

and has frontage on both Capon Rd and John Marshall Hwy. The applicants, Paul and Sheila Rush,

are desirous of converting an existing, dilapidated storage shed into a “mother-in-law suite” to

accommodate an elderly relative. This action will take place during a simultaneous restoration of

the existing, dilapidated primary dwelling. In accordance with Unified Development Ordinance

(UDO) Section 3.7.3, accessory dwellings are only permissible in the Agriculture/Rural

Residential (Ag/RR) zoning district after a successful application for a SUP.

Applicable Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Sections for Staff Review:

2.20.5 Approval Criteria

Concerning the criteria for approval of SUPs, the application satisfies criteria A, F through L, and

O, largely owing to the following factors:

(1) Accessory dwellings (LBCS 1130) are only permitted via a SUP in the Ag/RR zoning

district, as per UDO Sec 3.7.3.

(2) There is no evidence to suggest that any SUP has ever been issued by the Town to the

parcel in question.

(3) The existence of an accessory dwelling at this location is not likely to produce any

conditions that may constitute a nuisance or hardship as warned of in criteria H and K,

owing to the nature of the rural residential district in which the property is located.

Although the property is surrounded by single-family detached dwellings, within 350’ is

an existing, nonconforming two-family dwelling (896 Capon Rd), within 650’ is an

existing, nonconforming multi-family dwelling (636 Capon Rd) featuring at least three (3)

residential dwelling units- neither of which are reported to have caused any nuisances or

hardships to adjacent properties. In addition, an existing subdivision of two-family

dwellings is located 350’ south of the property in question, which is also not known to have

troubled the Capon Road neighborhood.

(4) The existence of an accessory dwelling at this location is not likely to adversely impact the

integrity of the surrounding area as warned of in criterion F.1, F.2, I, and J, as the property

is surrounded by single-family detached dwellings with accessory buildings of a

comparable size as the primary and accessory buildings in this case, and the applicants



intend to harmonize the materials and general appearance of the proposed accessory

dwelling with the primary dwelling and existing accessory buildings already on-site. The

applicants’ intention to rehabilitate an existing accessory building into an accessory

dwelling (not to mention the simultaneous restoration of the existing, dilapidated primary

dwelling) bolster the likelihood of a harmonious built environment.

(5) Ingress and egress to and from the property in question will be from a proposed driveway

to be installed off of Capon Rd. The driveway will connect to two (2) proposed parking

areas, both of which are large enough to accommodate the required two (2) nine-foot-by-

eighteen-foot (9’x18’) parking spaces. Two (2) parking areas are required in this case as

the property may now potentially feature two (2) residential dwelling units. Virtually no

pedestrian/cyclist traffic, nor a noticeable increase in vehicle trips to and from this property,

are anticipated as a result of this application’s approval.

(6) There is language present within the 2018 Comprehensive Plan which would appear to

contradict the intentions of the applicants. On page twenty-three (23), the Plan states:

Maintain the rural residential character of the Route 55 corridor, while limiting additional

residential uses in that area.

Staff argues that there is no conflict between this application and the Plan, as the applicants

are rehabilitating an existing, dilapidated storage shed into an accessory dwelling.

Additionally, staff finds that the applicants’ willingness to pursue this avenue of obtaining

housing for their elderly relative infringes less on the intent of the Plan than a potential,

by-right new construction of a single-family detached dwelling on a nearby vacant lot.

Concerning criteria for approval items M and N, the applicant has been warned of the scenarios in

which a SUP would be rendered null and void.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends discussion for a favorable recommendation to Town

Council from the Planning Commission, and reminds Planning Commission of its options to

condition and/or safeguard the application, which are mentioned in UDO Sec 2.20.4, in addition

to the criteria for approval items B through E of UDO Sec 2.20.5. Staff does recommend one (1)

condition of approval, which will be communicated with Planning Commission’s recommendation

to Town Council. The applicants’ agent indicates that an incorrect tax map parcel number (TMP#)

was recorded in the applicants’ deed to the property in question. Because SUPs are permits that

(in the absence of disuse and/or violations of the UDO) remain valid in perpetuity, staff

recommends that a deed of correction or other instrument be recorded in the Shenandoah County

Circuit Court Clerk’s Office to remedy this error and eliminate the potential for future confusion.

Applicable UDO Sections for Planning Commission Review:

2.20.4 Approval

When the Zoning Administrator has certified that the application is complete, it shall be deemed

received and shall be referred to the Planning Commission for its review and decision. The

Planning Commission, after public notice in accordance with applicable state laws, shall hold at

least one public hearing on the application. The Planning Commission may concurrently process

and review a rezoning Site Plan, subdivision approval, and SUP.



A. Type of Hearing. The public hearing before the Planning Commission and Town Council

shall be conducted as a quasi-judicial hearing.

B. Conditions. In making a recommendation on any SUP, the Planning Commission may:

1. Impose such reasonable standards, conditions, or requirements, in addition to or that

supersede any standard specified in the UDO, as it may deem necessary to protect the

public interest and welfare. Such additional standards may include, but need not be

limited to:

(a) Financing and availability of adequate public facilities or services;

(b) Dedication of land;

(c) Reservation of land;

(d) Payment of exactions;

(e) Creation of special assessment districts;

(f) Creation of restrictive covenants or easements;

(g) Special setbacks;

(h) Height requirements;

(i) Yard requirements;

(j) Increased screening or landscaping requirements;

(k) Area requirements;

(l) Development phasing; and

(m) Standards pertaining to traffic, circulation, noise, lighting, hours of operation,

protection of environmentally sensitive areas, and similar characteristics;

(n) Provision of sustainable features, solar or other renewable energy source, rain

water capture, storage and treatment or other sustainability requirement;

2. Require that a performance guarantee—acceptable in form, content, and amount to the

Town Attorney—be posted by the Applicant to ensure continued compliance with all

conditions and requirements as may be specified; and3..Require that a performance

guarantee—acceptable in form, content, and amount to the Town Attorney—be posted

by the Applicant to ensure continued compliance with all conditions and requirements

as may be specified; and

3. Require that a development agreement be entered into by the Applicant.

2.20.5 Approval Criteria

Where uses are permitted by special permit the location and beginning of such uses shall require,

in addition to the Zoning Permit and Certificate of Occupancy, a special use permit. Such permit

shall be subject to review and recommendation of the Planning Commission and approval of Town

Council. These permits shall be subject to such conditions as required in this UDO, and those that

the Town Council deems necessary to carry out the intent of this UDO. Application for such permit

shall be made to the Zoning Administrator who shall issue such permit only after approval by

Council. A public hearing in accordance with Code of Virginia, § 15.2-2204, as amended, shall

be held for all uses permitted by special permit. Such permits shall be issued in accordance with

the following regulations:

A. Such use shall be one which is specifically authorized as a special permit in the zoning

district wherein the Applicant seeks such permit.

B. Such permit shall only be granted subject to any applicable condition and safeguard as

required by this UDO.



C. Such permit may be granted subject to additional reasonable conditions and safeguards as

may be deemed by the Town Council to be advisable, appropriate, or necessary in the

public interest.

D. Such additional conditions may be recommended by the Planning Commission.

E. Such use shall be found by the Town Council to be in harmony with the general purposes

and intent of this UDO.

F. The proposed Special Use shall conform to the character of the neighborhood within the

same zoning district in which it is located. The proposal as submitted or modified shall

have no more adverse effects on health, safety, or comfort of persons living or working in

the neighborhood, or shall be no more injurious to property or improvements in the

neighborhood than would any other use generally permitted in the same district. In making

such a determination, consideration shall be given to:

1. The location, type, and height of buildings or structures;

2. The type and extent of landscaping and screening on the site; and

3. Whether the proposed use is consistent with any policy of the comprehensive plan

that encourages mixed uses and/or densities.

G. Such use shall be of such size and so located and laid out in relation to access streets that

vehicular and pedestrian traffic to and from such use will not create undue congestion or

hazards prejudicial to the general neighborhood.

H. The proposed use shall not be noxious or offensive by reason of vibration, noise, odor,

dust, smoke, or gas.

I. The proposed use shall not injure the use and enjoyment of the property in the immediate

vicinity for the purposes already permitted nor substantially diminish or impair the

property values within the neighborhood.

J. The proposed use shall not impede the orderly development and improvement of

surrounding property for uses permitted within the zoning district.

K. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed use shall not be detrimental

to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. The public

interest and welfare supporting the proposed use shall be sufficient to outweigh the

individual interests that are adversely affected by the establishment of the proposed use.

L. Such use shall not conflict with development in accordance with any comprehensive plan

or portion thereof which has been adopted by the Town Council.

M. A special use permit shall become null and void if the use is discontinued for two years.

N. If the use of the property substantially changes from the use presented in the application

the special use permit shall become null and void.

O. No more than one special use permit shall be permitted per parcel.

3.7.3 Low-Density Residential (LDR) Zoning District Use Matrix

Accessory dwellings (LBCS 1130) are only permitted via a SUP.

6.1 Accessory Dwellings

6.1.1 Purpose

Accessory dwelling units may be allowed in certain situations to provide a mix of housing that

responds to changing family needs and smaller households and provide a means for residents,



particularly seniors, single parents and families with grown children, to remain in their homes,

and obtain security, companionship and services.

6.1.2 Prohibited

Conversion of an accessory dwelling unit to a rental unit is strictly prohibited.

6.1.3 Standards

An accessory dwelling is allowed incidental to a primary dwelling unit and on the same lot as the

primary dwelling unit subject to the following conditions:

A. The primary dwelling unit is owner-occupied.

B. The accessory dwelling unit may be a temporary use.

C. An accessory structure may be converted or constructed as a temporary accessory dwelling

unit in any agricultural or residential zoned district.

D. The living area of such building shall not exceed 60% of the floor area of the main building

or principal residence.

E. The owner of the principal building or lot shall be the occupant of the principal dwelling or

of the accessory dwelling unit at all times.

F. Accessory dwelling units shall be limited to one (1) per primary dwelling unit, but no more

than one per lot.

G. Accessory dwellings shall be consistent with the look and scale of adjacent dwellings and

development patterns.

6.1.5 Prior Approval Required

Prior to construction of a dual-use accessory building, conversion of an existing building to dual-

use or establishment of an accessory dwelling, the landowner shall submit detailed plans and an

application for a Special Use Permit to the Zoning Administrator. If the owner fails to submit such

plans or deviates from such plans in the construction or conversion of the building, the entire

building shall be treated as residential.

Attachments:

(1) Survey and plans of the existing and proposed conditions on the property.

(2) Illustrations showing the harmoniousness of the proposed accessory dwelling with the

surrounding built environment.


793 CAPON RD

ATTACHMENT 2

<BEFORE

AFTER>

ATTACHMENT 2

SIMILARTIES B/W ACCESSORY DWELLING & EXISTING FEATURES & MATERIALS ON SITE

MIMICKING OF GABLED AWNING & MASSING<PRESENT ON EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING

V

DUPLICATION OF ROOF & SIDING MATERIALS & COLORS & MASONRY PILES ARE REMEMBERED

ATTACHMENT 2

PROXIMITY OF PROPERTY TO EXISTING TW0-FAMILY DWELLING (350’)

ATTACHMENT 2

PROXIMITY OF PROPERTY TO EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING (650’)

ATTACHMENT 2

PROXIMITY OF PROPERTY TO EXISTING TWO-FAMILY DWELLING SUBDIVISION (350’)

ATTACHMENT 2

EVERYDAY SCENES ON SCENIC CAPON ROAD

ATTACHMENT 2

town of strasburg...planning commission meeting were approved on a motion by commissioner nicholson...

Documents