Yesterday's Daily News Record featured an article on the short term rental situation at Massanutten Resort.  The latest update is that:



It has been an interesting four years (wow --- four years) that this debate has been going on, and it made me stop to think about the state of the Massanutten Resort housing market.  Below is a brief summary of changes in that market over the past four years, within the context of the Harrisonburg and Rockingham County housing market as a whole.



As can be seen above, Massanutten has seen a steady decline in the number of home sales taking place in each of the past four years.  That said, the Harrisonburg and Rockingham County market have seen a very similar decline.  The only deviation here is that the Massanutten market continued to decline rather significantly (35% drop) between 2008 and 2009 while the rate of decline slowed down somewhat in the Harrisonburg and Rockingham County market as a whole (13% drop).



The graph above shows changes in the median sales price of homes in the Massanutten Resort market as compared to changes in median sales price for the market as a whole.  The difference is staggering!  Harrisonburg and Rockingham County have seen a median sales price decline of 3.4% over the past four years. During the same time period, Massanutten Resort has suffered a 16% decline in median sales price.

It's impossible to know how much of a correlation exists between the soft Massanutten Resort market and the short term rental issue, but I believe this issue has certainly played some role in the changes depicted above.


Also . . . enjoy the second edition of Harrisonburg Real Estate Radio:

Assessments via Harrisonburg Real Estate Radio  [11:55]


Other recent podcasts: Home Inspections

Using data provided by the City of Harrisonburg, the information below is what I am finding on vacant land in the City of Harrisonburg.  Bear in mind that there is a bit more vacant land than referenced below, but I chose to exclude land owned by educational institutions, local government, religious organizations, state government. 

Vacant Land In Harrisonburg:

• 918 Residential Parcels (750 acres)
• 135 Multi-Family Parcels (192 acres)
• 216 Industrial Parcels (484 acres)
• 183 Commercial Parcels (320 acres)
• 14 Large Parcels (88 acres)

This is a total of 1,466 large parcels totaling 1,833 acres.

• The 1,466 vacant parcels account for 10% of the 15,075 total city parcels.
• The 1,833 acres account for 19% of the 9,655 total city acres.
  

Here is a visual to show the amount of vacant land remaining in the City of Harrisonburg:

This is a relatively common question, that usually takes one of the following forms:

• I own a house that is zoned R-1, am moving (into a different house, out of the area, etc) and want to know whether I can rent out the house instead of selling it.
• My son/daughter attends JMU and I'd like to buy them a house to live in with their friends --- how about that single family home (zoned R-1) over there?

So, let's see what we find out examining the Harrisonburg Zoning Ordinance.  First, a summary of the R-1 zoning ordinance provides the following general guidance:


To draw out a few points:

1. "intended for low-density" - Homes zoned R-1 are in areas that are intended for low-density use.  Rental properties usually end up as medium to high density use (to achieve maximum cash flow) and thus are not at all the intent for R-1 zoned properties.
2. "owner occupied dwellings can rent additional rooms, but not to more than two persons" - If the owner of the house lives in the home, they can have two additional people renting from them, but the home cannot have a second kitchen.
3. "Non-owner occupied dwellings can rent to only one other person" - If the owner of the house does not live in the home, an individual or family may (the non-owner occupant/s) and one additional tenant can live in the home.
4. "This district is the most restrictive zoning classification for occupancy" - In other words, if you're looking for a property with more flexible use, don't look at R-1 properties.

To get back to the original questions:

• If you own an R-1 home and want to rent it instead of selling it, you can do it, but we'll assume that you aren't going to be living in it yourself.  That being the case, you can't rent it to any more than two people, unless it is a family and one additional tenant.
• If you are a parent of a JMU student, and you own the house, your son/daughter could only have one additional roommate --- unless your son/daughter is on the deed, in which case I believe they would be an owner occupant and could have two additional people living in the house.
  

In addition to zoning summary, the entire Harrisonburg Zoning Ordinance (as of June 2009) is available online.  Or....for an official interpretation, you ought to call Harrisonburg's Department of Planning and Zoning at (540) 432-7700.

To better understand land use in our fine community, here is a basic breakdown of the 15,075 parcels of land in the City of Harrisonburg....



Zoning Distribution (Parcels)

• 84% of city land parcels are zoned for Residential Use
  
• 10% of city land parcels are zoned for Business Use
  
• 6% of city land parcels are zoned for Manufacturing Use

Zoning Distribution (Acreage)

• 64% of city acreage is devoted to Residential zoning
• 20% of city acreage is devoted to Manufacturing zoning
• 16% of city acreage is devoted to Business zoning

Residential Density (Parcels)

• 36% of residential city land parcels are zoned R1
• 25% of residential city land parcels are zoned R2
  
• 40% of residential city land parcels are zoned R3 or a higher density

Residential Density (Acreage)

• 50% of residential city acreage is zoned R1
• 15% of residential city acreage is zoned R2
  
• 34% of residential city acreage is zoned R3 or a higher density

R1 use is typically single family homes, R2 is typically a duplex or two-family home use, and R3+ are primarily townhouses and apartments.

Don't miss the Harrisonburg Planning Commission public hearing meeting on Wednesday, March 12 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 409 South Main Street.

As usual, it's not easy to tell what some of the proposals actually mean --- but I have included a summary and explanation of the ones that I can decipher, and I welcome anyone else's insight. Again, the information below is what I can piece together about the proposals from various sources. Attend the meeting to find out more about the proposals, or to voice your support or concerns.

	RMC Corporation would like a special use permit for a recreation facility to allow recreation and leisure time activities at 1000 South High Street in Harrisonburg. The photo to the file photo in the Harrisonburg Real Estate Information System.
	Heritage Estates is applying for a special use permit to allow a community building used for "recreational, social, educational and cultural activities." Perhaps they are building a community center?? Heritage Estates, pictured to the left, is located on Garbers Church Road.  Heritage Estates is also asking for a proffer amendment --- but the details here are a bit vague.
	Muhlenberg Lutheran Church is requesting a rezoning of 1.63 acres (on East Market Street) from B-2 to B-1C. This would allow them to move forward with a $2.2 million addition of a "gathering area." The church had originally requested an exception to the B-2 zoning ordinance, but this was denied by the Harrisonburg Board of Zoning Appeals on February 4, 2008.
	Hugo A. Kohl, III would like to rezone a rather small (3,000 +/- square foot) lot at 311 South Federal Street from B-2 to B-1C. Anyone have information on this one?
	Campus View Condominiums is requesting a rezoning of around 14 acres from R-3 to R-5C. This change would allow for higher density development. Additionally, Campus View Condos is requesting a special use permit to allow for multi-family dwellings with more than 12 units per building.

I have heard some people talk about development as if in the next few years, or decades, all of Rockingham County will be developed --- with the farm land destroyed, and our history no longer preserved.

Below I'll try to put that thought in the context of actual land use, but for the record --- I don't think many at today's Smart Growth Symposium thought that the above statement is true.  (Lest anyone conclude that I am referring to any of the attendees).



The data above is extracted from the Rockingham County Comprehensive Plan, particularly page 18 of the section on Strategies, Policies and Actions.

Here's the full list of how Rockingham County land is being used:

• Agriculture - 248,000 acres (46%)
• Forest - 50,000 acres (9%)
• Commercial - 4,000 acres (0.7%)
• Industrial - 1,400 acres (0.3%)
• Single Family Residential - 44,000 acres (8.2%)
• Multi-family or Duplex - 175 acres (<0.1%)
• Mobile Home Park - 1,100 acres (0.2%)
• Federal Government - 178,000 acres (33%)
• State Government - 500 acres (0.1%)
• Local Government - 1,700 acres (0.3%)
• Regional Government - 130 acres (<0.1%)
• Charitable/Religious/Education - 2,300 acres (0.4%)
• Other - 7,000 acres (1.8%)

As you can see --- much of Rockingham County will likely never be developed (33% is owned by the government) --- and we still have an extraordinary amount of undeveloped land.

Wow!  Today's Smart Growth Symposium, orchestrated by the Shenandoah Valley Builders Association was a fantastic primer on growth issues and how to plan for them in the central Shenandoah Valley. 

Stewart Schwartz, the Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, provided a great overview of smart growth principles and policies that provided a helpful framework for thinking about and planning for the future of our area. 

One key point that he made, that stuck with me, was a need to focus on developing in the right place. 

Those present included conservationists, builders, farmers, real estate agents, bankers, local planning staff, elected officials, engaged citizens, and more.  There seemed to be a great desire for and capacity to consider working together for the best future for our valley, despite the varying perspectives each of us bring to the table.

The Shenandoah Valley Builders Association will hold a Smart Growth Symposium on Friday, February 22, with registration at 9:30 AM and finishing around 3:30 PM.  This event will be an opportunity for members of the community to come together to learn about issues related to growth from a variety of perspectives, and to participate in a public conversation on the future of the Shenandoah Valley.

The schedule of speakers and topics is as follows:

10:00 AM  -  Stewart Schwartz, Coalition for Smarter Growth
Addressing the topic, "The Smart Growth Option"

11:45 AM  -  Lunch served

12:30 PM  -  Question & Answer session for panel of guests:

• Stewart Schwartz, Coalition for Smarter Growth
• Matt Robertson, Stratford Companies
• Scott Rogers, Coldwell Banker Funkhouser Realtors
• Kim Sandum, Community Alliance for Preservation
• Todd Rhea, Clark & Bradshaw
• Sara Hollberg, Valley Conservation Council

2:00 PM  -  Todd Rhea, Clark & Bradshaw
Addressing the topic "What is a Comprehensive Plan?"

This should be an informative day with a variety of opinions and perspectives.  The cost is $10 per person and includes lunch, and the deadline to RSVP is by Wednesday, February 20.  Reservations and payment can be made online.

Per the January 18th Daily News Record, the Harrisonburg Planning Commission recommended that City Council approve a rezoning request of 72.6 acres on Stone Spring Road.

Here are a few tidbits that might shed some light on the intricacies of this story:

• First, the zoning request doesn't have a lot to do with whether or not the 1,000 residential units will be developed.  The current zoning of the property allows 1,054 residential units to be developed.  The request, per the Planning Commission agenda, was to change the zoning from R-3 to R-5C.
  
  
• Harrisonburg recently made a change to R-3 zoning that affects a developer's right to build apartment buildings on land zoned R-3.  Building apartments on land that is zoned R-3 used to be a "by-right" use, but now (for developments post July 2010) a developer would need to obtain a special use permit for apartments. Since the referenced 72.6 acre property is currently zoned R-3, without a rezoning, if the developers wanted to build apartment buildings, they would have to either:
  
• start building by 2010, or
  
• apply for a special use permit
  
  
• The above bullet point may explain why George Pace (vice mayor) is referenced as saying that "developing the site could create a short-term glut of college student housing in the city."  I think that he is inferring that the developers might opt to go ahead and start building if they can't get the re-zoning to make sure that they can build apartment buildings.
  
  
• Of note, the developers pledged not to build more than 1,054 residential units --- the same amount that are permissible under the property's current zoning.  Again -- this re-zoning does not give the property owners the ability to build additional housing.  Even without the re-zoning, they can build the 1,054 units.
  
  
• There is also mention in the DNR article that the developers might wait to develop the project until Stone Spring Road is widened.  This would be helpful, as the new housing would certainly add quite a bit of housing to that road.
  
  
• The big question here is how the timing will end up working out on this project.  Many would assume (reasonably) that this re-zoning proposal suggests that the property will be developed soon.  My theory is that the owners want to go ahead and get it re-zoned to R-5 (possibly before lots of other property owners ask for the same), but that they will then hold onto the property for several years.

Annexation is the process whereby land is incorporated into an existing town or city. 

There have been several annexations in Harrisonburg's history, bringing the current size of the city to 11,132 acres.  The largest annexation (7,450 acres) took place in 1983 --- shown in pink on the map below.  (Map courtesy of the City of Harrisonburg).



Title 15.2 (Counties, Cities and Towns) of the Code of Virginia outlines how annexations are to take place. 

Here are some recent annexation related news items:
Mount Crawford seeks to annex 243 acres to expand to 467 acres.
Dayton discusses annexing along Route 257.

Could Harrisonburg and Rockingham County see another annexation anytime soon?  According to Brian, Harrisonburg's Director of Economic Development says the city has no plans to annex any portion of Rockingham County (source: Daily News Record).

On a related note, according to Keith Markel, one of Harrisonburg's previous city planners, most of the zoning frustrations stem from the 1983 annexation.  Much of that land was zoned R-3, which allows anything from single family homes to apartment complexes.  However, this past year, the right to build apartment complexes in R-3 zoned land was removed.

Over the past several years, prices of lots in eastern Rockingham County, particularly in the Peak View school district have increased dramatically.  However, in 2007, the average sales price dropped below the 2006 average sales price. 

2003:  $47,546  (81 sales)

2004:  $55,354  (112 sales)

2005:  $89,112  (98 sales)

2006:  $118,075  (51 sales)

2007:  $110,875  (35 sales)

As you can above, during this same time, demand for lots decreased rather significantly.  This was compounded by the fact that the inventory of available lots increased during the same time --- there are currently 109 lots available in the Peak View school district, as follows:

Subdivision	Lots for Sale	Average List Price
Barrington	3	$112,433
Battlefield Estates	3	$89,500
Bridlewood	2	$106,200
Crossroads Farms	22	$130,482
Givenchy Commons	10	$129,900
Great Oaks	1	$99,900
Highland Park	2	$118,700
Lakewood	1	$109,900
Magnolia Ridge	65	$117,888

We've seen it in the news for almost a year and half now --- a group of homeowners in Massanutten Village are suing other such property owners because of the use of homes in their community as short-term (or vacation) rentals.  This seems to most commonly understood as rental periods of less than 30 days.

The latest --- instead of just suing two families for their rental transgressions, the plaintiffs are now suing 28 property owners! 

The entire debate on this issue seems to be over interpretation of the Massanutten Village covenants and restrictions.  Those being sued point out that these covenants don't explicitly prohibit short term rentals.  Those doing the suing characterize short term rentals as a business use, which is prohibited per the covenants.

The blow by blow:

• Zoning complaint filed against three property owners.
  
• County rules against three property owners.
  
• Three property owners appeal to Board of Zoning Appeals.
  
• Board of Zoning Appeals rules against three property owners.
  
• Three property owners appeal to Rockingham County Circuit Court.
• Rockingham County drops out of case based on Virginia Supreme Court ruling on Smith Mountain Lake vacation rentals.
• Lawsuit filed against 28 property owners.

For more on this controversial topic, keep reading the Daily News Record, keep reading my blog, or check out this very informative web site maintained by one of the plaintiffs, Gene Hauze.