12.B) Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – The Ordinance would Amend Chapter 165 – Zoning Ordinance, to Add “Short-Term Lodging (STL)” to the Definitions Section, Provide Additional Regulations for Short-Term Lodging, Add the Use as a Permitted Use to the RP (Residential Performance) and MH1 (Mobile Home Community) Zoning Districts, and Add the Use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District as Either (I) a Permitted Use in all of the RA Zoning District or (II) as a Permitted Use in the RA Zoning District if the STL Operation has Direct Access to a State-Maintained Road and as a Conditional Use in the RA Zoning District if the STL Operation Does Not Have Direct Access to a State-Maintained Road (with Respect to the RA Zoning District, the Board will Consider Both Options).
Chapter 165 Zoning, Article I General Provisions; Amendments; and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 General Provisions, §165-101.02. Definitions and Word Usage.
Article II Supplementary Use Regulations; Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, §165-204.35. Short-Term Lodging.
Article IV Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401, RA Rural Areas District, §165-401.02. Permitted Uses, §165-401.03. Conditional Uses, Part 402 RP Residential Performance District, §165-402.02. Permitted Uses, and Part 403 MH1 Mobile Home District, §165-403.02. Permitted Uses.
Regarding agenda item 12B on page 222 of the packet, I encourage the BOS to make STL a CUP (scenario B), not a by-right permitted use (scenario A) for RA lots that don't have direct access to VDOT maintained roads. I am a director of a Property Owners' Association, GNMSOA, on Great North Mountain, Back Creek DIstrict. We have an owner doing STL from his lot on one of our private roads, Great Mountain Ln, 3.3 miles long, which provides locked gated access to 19 RA lots. This is one of 4 private roads we maintain for 62 lots averaging 50 acres each. While our covenants provide us some control over STL, as allowed within the Code of Virginia, a county CUP requirement would help owners and associations work together to understand the impact of STLs on road maintenance, gate access security, snow plowing costs, and privacy of our other lot owners. I am aware of other gated HOAs within the county that would have similar concerns. Also note regarding the proposed wording, we are not talking about shared driveways. All of our lots have private driveways, all of which access VDOT roads via our owner-shared 10 miles of private unpaved roads. Please help us keep control of STL by requiring the RA CUP. Thank you. Jordan Casteel, sec/treas Great North Mountain Section Owners Association
Regarding agenda item 12B on page 222 of the packet, I encourage the BOS to make STL a CUP (scenario B), not a by-right permitted use (scenario A) for RA lots that don't have direct access to VDOT maintained roads. I am a director of a Property Owners' Association, GNMSOA, on Great North Mountain, Back Creek DIstrict. We have an owner doing STL from his lot on one of our private roads, Great Mountain Ln, 3.3 miles long, which provides locked gated access to 19 RA lots. This is one of 4 private roads we maintain for 62 lots averaging 50 acres each. While our covenants provide us some control over STL, as allowed within the Code of Virginia, a county CUP requirement would help owners and associations work together to understand the impact of STLs on road maintenance, gate access security, snow plowing costs, and privacy of our other lot owners. I am aware of other gated HOAs within the county that would have similar concerns. Also note regarding the proposed wording, we are not talking about shared driveways. All of our lots have private driveways, all of which access VDOT roads via our owner-shared 10 miles of private unpaved roads. Please help us keep control of STL by requiring the RA CUP. Thank you. Jordan Casteel, sec/treas Great North Mountain Section Owners Association