LeftColumnBK

City Planning Commission to Recommend Change to Room Rental Policy

The Williamsburg Planning Commission will recommend a change to the city’s existing policy for the rental of rooms in owner-occupied homes.

The commission members voted 4-2 to approve the recommendation; Sean Driscoll and Daniel Quarles dissented. The commissioners were revisiting the issue for the third time since April, and discussed possibly delaying further to bring back a previously dismissed option. But the members ultimately decided to vote on a motion to allow the rental of one bedroom to one roomer by right and the rental of bedrooms to two roomers with administrative approval.

City Council first referred the issue to the Planning Commission at its April 14 meeting. Council’s discussion had focused on allowing homeowners who live in their homes to rent rooms to more than one roomer with administrative approval, rather than seek approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Council wanted to encourage room rentals in owner-occupied homes, said Deputy Planning Director Carolyn Murphy in a memo to the commission.

Council suggested the commission look at several possible alternatives. The commission considered those options at their May 18 and June 15 meetings and narrowed their choices to either no change or allowing the rental of one bedroom to one roomer by right and the rental of bedrooms to two roomers with administrative approval.

The current Zoning Ordinance allows homeowners to rent one bedroom to one roomer by right. Rental of bedrooms to more than one roomer is allowed with special exception by the Board of Zoning Appeals, with a maximum of two bedrooms rented to two roomers each, for a total of four roomers. The current regulations were adopted in 1991, and since then, five requests for special exceptions have been made to the BZA. Two were denied and three were approved.

Much of the debate at Wednesday’s meeting centered on whether a change to the existing policy is needed; commissioner Greg Ballentine repeatedly said he didn’t expect many homeowners would rush to rent rooms in their homes to more than two roomers. In addition, one speaker said she didn’t want to see more college students (the city’s primary renters) moving into residential areas, even if the owners live in the homes. Quarles, who lives in a neighborhood with several homes rented to students, agreed with her concerns and said, “I think a step to make it easier to get to two roomers is a step in the wrong direction.”

The commissioners who did vote in favor of the option noted they could see the merit in no longer requiring BZA approval. Ballentine, a member of the BZA, said some feel the BZA approach takes too long and is too costly for applicants.

Regardless of how they voted, the commissioners expressed concern their recommendation will have little bearing on how council votes. In 2009, City Council tasked the commission with exploring options for possibly increasing the number of unrelated persons living together in a single family dwelling from three to four. After months of deliberation, the commission presented council with three options (two that would keep the three-person limit), but council ultimately approved a fourth option that had not been discussed by the commission.

“It seems like council already has an opinion formed,” Driscoll said Wednesday. “Last time, it was a done deal before it started.”

 

Comments  

 
0 #4 Guest 2011-07-29 12:34
Warning: the following is related, but something of a hijacking of the comments section (and also something of a rant):

Any home in city limits should not only be allowed to rent rooms to a greater number of people, but also allowed to build one or more accessory apartments either in the home or on the same property. Most of downtown should be rezoned to multifamily/mix ed-use.

We have a lot of demand and very little supply. The consequence is the development of more suburban crap in the surrounding counties, which dilutes quality of life in the region. Excessive redevelopment in town may not be a change for the better, but at least the city (which has much higher standards than the surrounding counties) would have some control over the quality of that redevelopment. I'd much rather see the city create or extend areas like prince george street (a reasonably successful mix residential, retail, and office uses) than give James City County or Yorktown the impetus for another Newtown (not a total disaster, but...) or even just more strip malls and poorly constructed boxes of glued together particle board passed slapped up by a gold course and passed of as "luxury housing" to a public generally too indiscriminate to know the difference.

The city needs to use an entirely different approach to win this battle; architectural controls rather than density limitations...
Quote
 
 
0 #3 Guest 2011-07-22 10:38
Hey, Planning Comm, hey City Council, why are "you all" afraid of tenents. Non-tenent housing crams in as many persons as they wamt///it is legal for them. Any side effects of large families doing so none...! Has anyone of the PC or CC members invited reloatives to their accommodations cramming them from the basement tothe ceiling: guess that was fine.
Quote
 
 
+7 #2 Guest 2011-07-21 12:06
The City Council is always confusing procedures. If it pertains to the States W&M sudents concerns they twist and turn to provide confort. If it pertains to other accommodations such as for B&B's they made it harder. Purely not fair. As their is pride in the student body, the body of B&B should be concerned. Where increase for student rentals will be coming, reconsider an additional room increasze for B&B to five. Make this housing afforadable to maintain.
Quote
 
 
+2 #1 Guest 2011-07-21 05:50
More rooms more people ...single family dwelling ???
Quote
 

Add comment

WYDaily invites you to join the community conversation. We expect civil discourse here. Personal attacks on others, indecent language and bad manners in general are unwelcome.


Security code
Refresh

Talk of the Town

Talk of the Town