Town Council Sends Auxiliary Dwelling Unit Proposed Ordinance Back to Planning Commission for Further Review

Amid an update from Tourism Director Lizi Lewis, several housekeeping items presented by Purchasing Manager Michelle Campbell and Finance Director B.J. Wilson respectively, and a request for out-of-town water and septic service, the Town Council at their Monday, September 8 work session turned their attention to unfinished business: the proposed ordinance to amend Town code to reflect new definitions and performance standards for auxiliary dwelling units. Having reviewed this item at their last work session, many of the same views were articulated among council members about the readiness of the ordinance for action at a regular meeting. Finally, the consensus was to send the item back to the Planning Commission for further evaluation.

Director of Tourism Lizi Lewis updates the council on matters pertaining to the Front Royal Economic Development Authority.

It is important to distinguish between an auxiliary dwelling unit and an accessory building. The former in the proposed amendment is also known as an in-law unit, a backyard cottage, or a granny flat. The language defines it 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.”

Purchasing Manager Michelle Campbell presents to the council a recommendation for the awarding of construction services for the restoration of the creek bank at the 8th Street Bridge.

The accessory building, on the other hand, would not allow for residential occupancy and would be defined as: “A building or structure 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.” Thus, the first is for residential occupancy and the second is for utility purposes.

Finance Director B.J. Wilson presents several items to the council, among them the replacement of a refuse truck.

The proposed ordinance would permit the development of ADUs by-right in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-3, and PND zoning areas. This is where the item hits a roadblock. Councilman Bruce Rappaport pointed out that the R-1 designation is traditionally a low-density district, and while density would not increase in every case, there would at least be some cases, like a detached ADU, where density would increase. While he is comfortable with by-right development in the other areas, R-1, in his mind, needs to be protected. For that reason, he supported sending the item back to the Planning Commission. While they may have had various reasons of their own, his fellow council members joined him in moving to send the item back for further review.

The ADU is attractive for many reasons. It allows aging family members or returning college students to live affordably while keeping the cost restricted to the homeowner instead of the taxpayer. The property must be owner-occupied, whether the owner chooses to live in the primary dwelling or the ADU itself. Per Rappaport’s point, there might be an appreciable effect for R-1, but generally, this is a low-density approach that does not alter the character of the neighborhood. With standards for floor space, lot coverage, and setbacks, the ordinance would accommodate a returning historical trend