Government: County of Warren, Virginia
Body: Board of Supervisors
Date: January 20, 2026, 7:00 PM
Location: Warren County Government Center
Type: Public Comment
Timestamps: 00:38:19, 01:12:02
Durations: 01:12, 00:21
đź“Ť Warren County Government Center
đź“… January 20, 2026
On January 20, 2026, the Warren County Board of Supervisors heard multiple short-term rental (STR) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) applications in succession:
- CUP2025-11-02 – 3221 Freezeland Rd
- CUP2025-11-03 – 137 Wendy Hill Rd
- CUP2025-11-05 – 347 Riley Court
Because several STR cases were scheduled back-to-back, the conversation evolved across agenda items. That format allowed for something unusual in public hearings: a multi-part exchange.
Rather than a single comment attached to a single case, the dialogue unfolded over the course of the evening.
Neighbor Approval and Setback Waivers
During a hearing, Supervisor Hugh Henry explained that written neighbor approval can influence whether setback requirements are waived in STR cases.
In some situations, when a neighboring property owner is comfortable with a reduced setback, supervisors may support the waiver. In others — particularly when neighbors object — that input can weigh heavily in the decision.
The takeaway was clear: neighbor sentiment matters.
A Question of Transparency
In response, I raised a broader process question:
If neighbor opposition significantly affects outcomes, should that be made more explicit upfront?
Over the past year, there have been discussions about developing a scoring grid or decision framework for STRs. I suggested that clearer decision criteria—even if not a strict scoring system—could help applicants understand what factors may substantially affect approval before investing time and resources in a hearing.
If neighbor agreement is a major factor, it could be clearly communicated on the County website.
The goal isn’t to eliminate discretion. It’s to improve predictability.
The Scoring Grid Discussion
Supervisor Richard Jamieson referenced prior work sessions in which a grid or scoring method was discussed and asked whether it had progressed.
The Zoning Administrator responded that while aspects of the structure might be workable, much of the previously presented table raised legal viability concerns and did not align cleanly with supplemental regulations or public health and safety standards governing CUPs.
In short, the concept had been reviewed, but not adopted.
Conditions and Revocation
Supervisor Cheryl Cullers emphasized the value of applicants discussing proposals with neighbors before hearings so residents are not caught off guard.
She also reminded the public that conditional use permits are exactly that — conditional. If conditions are violated, the permit can be revoked.
That reinforces an important point: approval is not permanent immunity.
STR Trends and Public Data
Supervisor Tony Carter asked about the total number of active short-term rentals and whether applications were increasing.
Staff confirmed:
- 202 active and approved STRs
- 19 grandfathered
- Applications appear to be declining
A short-term rental study has been prepared and is expected to be shared. I followed up by requesting that the report and related data be made available to the public.
If numbers are shaping policy conversations, they should be visible.
Why This Exchange Matters
This clip captures something larger than a single property:
- How neighbor input influences land use outcomes
- The balance between discretion and transparency
- The limits of scoring systems in conditional use decisions
- The role of publicly available data
Because multiple STR hearings occurred in succession, the conversation carried over to subsequent cases, enabling clarification, follow-up, and iterative discussion.
Public policy often develops this way: incrementally, across agenda items, in small but meaningful exchanges.
Transcript
CUP2025-11-02 – Supervisor Hugh Henry (Neighbors & Setbacks)
0:00 Pretty much the rule of thumb was is
0:01 that you had to have absolute, you know,
0:04 written permission from whoever you’re
0:06 wavering to set back on. And uh in a lot
0:10 of cases where it really made, you know,
0:11 some, you know, 90 foot, 10 foot is not
0:13 a big deal for if that neighbor is
0:15 comfortable with that, I’m no objection,
0:18 I would support it. We get some of them
0:19 are very low. They’re 35 ft. You think,
0:21 why would you approve that? Oh, both of
0:24 them may be short-term rentals. So, you
0:28 know, one short-term rental is not a
0:29 nuisance to get another short-term
0:31 rental. And then I’ve also seen it where
0:34 the uh
0:36 it was two houses together. They were
0:37 very close and owner of both properties
0:41 lived in one and rented the other and he
0:43 was not very successful as a long-term
0:45 renter. And u to me that was almost like
0:48 bid and breakfast. That was almost the
0:49 best one because literally the property
0:51 manager was less than 100 ft away. So
0:54 they were very positive examples of when
0:58 we wave the setback. But if it’s less
1:00 than 100
1:02 and
1:04 you come in and say I I’m not
1:06 comfortable with it, then I’d be more
1:08 apt to support not waving in the rule.
1:10 But just to confirm, you did have letter
1:13 of approval from the neighbor that
1:16 Yes, sir.
1:17 Okay. Thank you.
CUP2025-11-03 – Lewis Moten (Decision Criteria Transparency)
1:18 Good evening. My name is Lewis Moten
1:20 from the North River District. Um, you
1:24 had just mentioned that uh you would
1:27 often base your decisions off of
1:29 neighboring properties. I have brought
1:32 up before and I believe another
1:34 constituent has contacted the
1:35 supervisors before as well about some
1:37 kind of scoring metrics. And I believe
1:40 if something were available on your
1:43 website that says, “Hey, this will
1:46 factor in and if you can’t get your
1:48 neighbors to agree, then they it really
1:51 isn’t worth your time to approach the
1:54 supervisors.” It would save everybody
1:56 time if they knew that going in that
1:59 this was an immediate disqualifier.
2:03 Um, it might not be an immediate
2:04 disqualifier, but it sounds like it’s
2:06 really going to be impact that
2:09 I don’t know what it is. Is it a score
2:11 or not? But your decisions, if it’s very
2:13 much impacted by a negative um neighbor
2:18 that doesn’t want this,
2:21 please bring that up front and stop
2:22 wasting everybody’s time. We don’t have
2:26 to have these hearings if everybody
2:27 knows ahead of time it’s not going to
2:29 work unless they can get their neighbors
2:31 to agree. Thank you. If I could just say
Supervisor Jamieson – Scoring Method Question
2:34 um I think within six the last six
2:37 months I think we had two work sessions
2:39 about this. I might be wrong about the
2:42 number of months but we’ve had had a
2:44 couple of work sessions and at the last
2:46 one I think we uh and I want this is
2:48 what I want to verify is is uh that grid
2:51 scoring method had been mentioned and
2:54 has that been sort of like taken into a
2:57 project to evaluate by by planning guys?
Chase Lenz, Zoning Administrator – Response
3:00 I have looked at it. I have not
3:01 forwarded it to legal for review. Uh,
3:04 frankly, upon my review of it, not much
3:06 of it looked legally viable. The overall
3:08 structure may be something that we could
3:10 approach like a by right versus by CUP
3:12 kind of division, but the individual
3:14 functions within the table that was
3:16 presented. Not much of that had anything
3:18 to do with uh the supplemental
3:20 regulations in place for short-term
3:22 rentals or addressing public health and
3:24 safety factors as it relates to a
3:27 conditional use permit. Um the only
Supervisor Cullers – Neighbor Discussions & CUP Conditions
3:29 thing I would like to clarify with
3:32 planning for comments that were made um
3:36 there is
3:38 there is some value to to discuss with
3:41 your neighbors to kind of get a feel um
3:44 so that neighbors aren’t caught off
3:46 guard when a sign goes in the yard that
3:48 there’s going to be a public hearing. So
3:50 we have encouraged having discussions. I
3:53 never thought of it the way that you
3:55 mentioned it. Um, it’s just nice to have
3:58 an idea of how well this is going to be
4:01 received in the community. And the other
4:05 thing, there is an avenue. If any of
4:09 these, a conditional use permit is just
4:12 that. It’s a condition. You break any of
4:13 these conditions and they’re brought
4:15 before us, the conditional use can be
4:17 pulled. I
Supervisor Carter – STR Count & Trend Question
4:18 just had a question. Not trying to put
4:20 staff on the spot, but how many um
4:24 short-term rentals do we have right now?
4:26 202.
4:27 And how has that been going? Because I
4:28 think like Dr. Jameson said too, and
4:30 tonight we had six, seven, eight. It
4:32 seems like I think at one point you all
4:33 had a separate meeting just for uh
4:35 public hearings, but has that seen any
4:38 type of dramatic incline lately?
Kelly Wahl, Planner – 202 Active STRs, Study Forthcoming
4:39 We are seeing a decline in applications.
4:42 I have put together a short-term torch
4:44 rental study that has been provided to
4:46 Mr. Gotshaw. Um, and I believe he will
4:49 be sharing that with you all soon. We’re
4:50 just waiting to hear back from some
4:51 planning commissioners if they wanted to
4:53 discuss anything further. Um, I have
4:55 heard back from two of them that
4:57 provided no commentary other than
4:59 providing the numbers by magisterial
5:01 district. Um, but I can get with Mr.
5:03 Gotaw and we can get that study to you
5:05 guys ASAP. Um, that shows it has a
5:07 breakdown of as much information that I
5:10 could possibly think of um, for you all
5:13 to review. So, we currently have 202
5:15 active and approved short-term tourist
5:17 rentals. 19 of them are grandfathered.
CUP2025-11-05 – Lewis Moten (Request For Public Report)
5:20 Good evening, supervisors. My name is
5:22 Lewis Moten from the North River
5:23 District. Um, I imagine this item will
5:27 be included on the report that will be
5:29 sent to you, and I would hope that that
5:31 report is available to the general
5:34 public as well because I’m very
5:36 interested to see what those numbers are
5:38 like. Thank you.
