As Returning Trend, Auxiliary Dwelling Units Receive Enthusiastic Support from Town Planning Commission

“Enthusiastic, yes!”

Chairman of the Town Planning Commission, Connie Marshner, forcefully rendered her vote in favor of code revision to accommodate auxiliary dwelling units at the Wednesday, August 20, meeting of the commission. By refining definitions and installing performance standards, this item under consideration would address a range of housing concerns, should the Town Council share the commission’s enthusiasm. Brief discussion reflected not only the merits of this proposal, but also the journey it has traveled to arrive at its current shape.

As a Returning Trend, Auxiliary Dwelling Units Receive Enthusiastic Support from the Town Planning Commission

While some might consider ADUs an innovation, they are quite conservative, reflecting how past generations have economized their housing needs. This higher density approach leaves the character of the neighborhood intact, while allowing demographics such as returning college students and aging family members an affordable living situation. Auxiliary dwelling unit, also known as in-law units, backyard cottage, or granny flat, is defined in the text amendment as “a secondary, self-contained residential unit located on the same lot as a primary single-family dwelling. It includes independent living facilities such as a kitchen, bathroom, sleeping area, and separate entrance.”

Deputy Zoning Administrator John Ware presents the items for the commission’s consideration.

The language of the performance standards being considered by the commission specifies that the ADU must be located on the same lot as a single-family detached dwelling, existing or proposed, and that only one ADU is permitted per residential lot. It proceeds to regulate floor space in the exigency that the ADU is internal and in the exigency that it is detached. Also, the property must be owner-occupied. The amendment goes to great lengths to distinguish between an ADU and an accessory building or structure, in which, printed in red, “no residential occupancy is permitted.” This would be an edifice intended for utility use that is “subordinate to, and located on the same lot as the principal permitted use of the property, of which, the accessory building or accessory structure is used for purposes that are clearly incidental to that of the principal permitted use of the property, and which is not attached by any part of a common wall or roof to the main building, or buildings, if any.”

Applicant Stacey Philpot speaks in favor of a lodging house proposed by the Life Repair Center.

Should this go through at the council level, ADUs would be permitted by right in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-3, and PND zoning districts. Commissioner Teresa Fedoryka commended Vice-Chairman Allen Neel in his absence for the work he has done to move this item forward. Marshner seconded her in that sentiment. In the absence of both Neel and Commissioner Megan Marrazzo, the quorum voted to recommend approval to the Town Council.

Other items on the agenda included two applications for short-term rentals, an application for a lodging house, and two other text amendments: one to streamline the definition of “overhang” and the other, a multi-faceted piece, that would, in part, exempt short-term rentals from the off-street parking requirement. Having heard a report about July from Planning Director Lauren Kopishke and having no other business to attend to, the meeting was adjourned.

Click here to watch the Front Royal Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2025.