Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rental Occupancy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fredericksburg Board of Adjustment fails to approve occupancy increase at 106 West College
Summary
After public testimony and extensive deliberation about measurement methods and neighborhood impacts, the board failed to reach the supermajority required to increase a short-term rental’s occupancy from 8 to 10 at 106 West College. Staff said the applicant must reapply or clarify supporting facts.
The Fredericksburg Board of Adjustment voted on a special-exception request to increase occupancy at a short-term rental property commonly known as 106 West College and failed to reach the required affirmative threshold, denying the requested increase.
City staff told the board the house has five bedrooms and a lot area of 18,714 square feet, and indicated the request sought to raise permitted overnight occupancy to 10. Staff also noted a cap in local rules and flagged concerns about whether on-site parking and bedroom configuration supported the higher count. "For the record, there is no current STR to the knowledge of the staff," a City staff member said during public comment about an earlier misprint in a staff memo that had identified a property as an STR.
Neighbors told the board the neighborhood already hosts several STRs and warned that increasing occupancy at 106 West College would intensify noise, late-night parties and parking conflicts. Resident Adeo (Connie) Wright described recurring weekend disturbances from what she called a nearby "party house," saying the additional guests "would only intensify the existing problems and further erode the quality of life for long-term residents."
Board members debated how to apply the ordinance's clustering test, which requires that more than 50% of properties within a 200-foot radius be STRs to qualify in some categories. Speakers disagreed about whether vacant parcels should count and whether measurement should be by parcel or lot line; staff acknowledged GIS overlays and mapping can be imprecise and said applicants bear the burden of proving measurements and counts in their filings.
A motion to approve the occupancy increase was seconded and put to a voice vote. The chair reported a tally of two in favor and two opposed; because the ordinance requires a 75% affirmative threshold for this type of action, the motion failed and the requested increase to 10 occupants was not approved. The board left open the applicant’s option to reapply with clearer supporting evidence.
The board also flagged the larger problem of ambiguity in how the 200-foot clustering and property counts are calculated and directed staff to prepare clarifying language for future cases. Staff said any code rewrite of the Unified Development Code would take 18–24 months but that staff would pursue quicker fixes where feasible.
The matter concluded with the formal announcement that the occupancy increase had not been approved; no further administrative actions on this case were recorded at the meeting.
