On the agenda: Page County meeting — Flock Safety (Oct 19)

Page County
Board of Supervisors

County Government Center • 103 S Court St • Luray, VA 22835
www.pagecounty.virginia.gov • Live Meeting Stream

Agenda
Regular Meeting
Board Room – 2nd Floor
October 19, 2026 – 7:00 p.m.

Call to Order
• Moment of Silence/Invocation (District 5)
• Pledge of Allegiance
• Microphone Reminder
Adoption of Agenda
Presentations, Proclamations & Awards
Update on the Meat Processing Facility
Wellness/Recreation Center Feasibility Study
Landfill Update & Tipping Fees Discussion

Nina Fox
Andrew Good
Crystal Stapley

Public Comments on Agenda Items
(3-minute time limit for each speaker)
Action Matters
Budget Changes
Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Short Term Rentals
Resolution on the FirstEnergy Page-Sperryville Transmission
Line Rebuild Project
Board & Commission Appointments

Tyler Olsen (p. 3)
Tracy Clatterbuck (p. 17)
Supervisor Kile (p. 168)
Regina Harner (p. 170)

Consent Agenda (p. 171)
•
Approval of Financial Reports
•
Approval of Accounts Payable
•
Approval of Minutes – September 8, 2026, September 21, 2026
•
Coyote Claims

Mission Statement
To provide our citizens and businesses with a superior quality of life by delivering
County services and programs in a fiscally prudent and responsible manner.

Agenda - Board of Supervisors
October 19, 2026

Old Business
New Business
Open Public Comments
(3-minute time limit for each speaker)
Administrator’s Report
Supervisors Time
Closed Session
• Consultation with Legal Counsel for Legal Advice, Pursuant to Section
2.2-3711(A)(8) of the Code of Virginia
• Acquisition of Real Property, Pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(3) of the Code of Virginia
Exit Closed Session/Certification of Closed Session
Adjourn

Mission Statement
To provide our citizens and businesses with a superior quality of life by delivering
County services and programs in a fiscally prudent and responsible manner.

TO:

FROM:

Chairman Thomas and Board of Supervisors

Tyler Olsen, Finance Director

SUBJECT:

DATE:

Budget Changes

October 19, 2026

Requests
The School Board has received $16,865 in insurance proceeds. Rather than requesting an additional
appropriation, the School Board is reducing its state revenue estimate to reflect more recent, lower
projections. The insurance proceeds will be used for transportation expenses instead of instructional
purposes. Accordingly, it is requested that the Instructional category be reduced by $16,865 and the
Transportation category be increased by the same amount.
The School Board has also incurred various expenses related to repairs and capital projects.
Expenses under $7,000 are being absorbed within the existing budget. For the remaining expenses,
the School Board is requesting $252,012 from the General Fund Balance, as detailed in the
attachment. Purchase orders have been issued for all items except the well drilling and pump at
Springfield Elementary School. Two quotes for the well drilling are included in the attachments.
Accordingly, it is requested that $252,012 from the General Fund Balance be appropriated to the
Operations and Management category to cover these expenses.
The General Registrar has received $700 in filing penalty fees. It is requested that these local
funds be appropriated for part-time wages in the office.
The Sheriff's Office has received $21,001 in grant funding from the DMV. It is requested that
these federal funds be appropriated for overtime wages and radar and LIDAR equipment.

Recommendation
Staff recommends appropriation of all requests.

BUDGET CHANGES

October 19, 2026

General Fund Balance Update
After accounting for $3.5 million in current-year carryovers and appropriations, the estimated General
Fund Balance is $16.7 million, or $8.5 million above the growing minimum required balance. Over the
next few months, the School Board is expected to request $120,000 for three used school buses and
$800,000 for the Technology Center’s welding shop. Beginning in FY 2028, the School Board also
anticipates needing an additional $1.2 million annually to cover a four percent pay raise and rising
health insurance costs.
Given the Board’s priority of keeping taxes low and the significant future costs associated with
school facility improvements, careful consideration must be given to the impact of spending decisions
on the General Fund Balance. Although the current balance exceeds the required minimum, continued
use of these funds without sufficient replenishment could negatively impact the County’s borrowing
rates on debt, which will be needed to fund facility improvements.

Fiscal Impact
The appropriation requests are funded with $252,012 from the General Fund Balance, $700 in local
funds, and $21,001 in federal funds. These requests will increase the General Fund Budget by
$21,701 and School Operating Fund Budget by $252,012. The School Board’s transfer request will
decrease the Instructional category by $16,865 and increase the Transportation category by the same
amount.

Motion
I move to approve revenue of:
-

$252,012 from the General Fund Balance,

-

$700 in local funds, and

-

$21,001 in federal funds;

Expenditures of:
-

$21,701 to the General Fund Budget and

-

$252,012 to the School Operating Fund Budget; and

A categorical transfer of $16,865 from Instruction to Transportation within the School Operating Fund.

2

BUDGET CHANGES

October 19, 2026

Attachments
1. Resolution 2027-004, Page County School Board
2. Resolution 2027-005, Page County School Board
3. CIP Needs FY 27, Page County School Board
4. Valley Well & Water Solution, Inc. Quote
5. Wilson Well Drilling Quote

3

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS:
Item #
Department
Description/Reason
A

School Board

Capital Projects

B

General Registrar

Filing Penalty Fees

C

Sheriff's Office

DMV Grant

Revenue Source

Expenditure

Requested Amt.

General Fund Balance
101-0000-341-04-07
Filing Penalty Fees
101-0000-318-02-12
DMV Grant
101-0000-333-09-08

Operations & Maintenance

$

Part-Time Wages
101-1320-413-11-04
Overtime, Equipment
101-3120-431-59-24

252,012
700
21,001

TOTAL REQUESTS:
BUDGET TRANSFER REQUESTS:
Item #
Department

Description/Reason

Transfer From

Transfer to

Requested Amt.

A

Revenue Update

Instructional

Transportation

$

16,865

$

16,865

School Board
TOTAL REQUESTS:

$

273,713

2027-004

PAGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD RESOLUTION REQUESTING AN ADJUSTMENT

TO THE FY 2027 BUDGETED REVENUE TO ACCOUNT FOR ADDITIONAL STATE

AND LOCAL FUNDS

WHEREAS, the Page County School Board has identified the need to adjust Fiscal Year 2027
budgeted revenue accounts to properly reflect State Career and Technical Education (CТЕ)
funding in the amount of $17,358 and insurance claim funds in the amount of $16,865; and

WHEREAS, the requested budget adjustments are administrative in nature and are necessary to
accurately account for anticipated revenues and expenditures within the School Division's
approved FY2027 Operating Budget; and
WHEREAS, these adjustments do not increase the amount of local funding previously
appropriated by the Page County Board of Supervisors but instead revise revenue and
expenditure categories to properly reflect available funding sources and operational
requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Page County School Board hereby
requests that the Page County Board of Supervisors approve the necessary adjustments to the
Fiscal Year 2027 School Operating Fund revenue budget to properly account for:
State Career and Technical Education Funding

Insurance Claim Funds

-

$16,865

-

$17,358

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Page County School Board respectfully

requests that the Page County Board of Supervisors approve the adjustments to the FY2027
School Operating Budget revenue and expenditure categories as presented.

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the total adopted Fiscal Year 2027 School Operating Fund
budget shall remain unchanged following these adjustments.

This is to certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Page County School

Board during its regular meeting on Thursday, September 24, 2026.

Dnans &.Paty

Mpin

o

Duane Painter, Chairman

Marina Comer, Clerk

Page County School Board

Page County School Board

2027-004

BUDGET AMENDMENT 2027-04
FUND 1 OPERATING
EXPENDITURE FUNCTION

BUDGET FY 2027

61 INSTRUCTIONAL

$35,972,811.52

62 ADMIN, ATTENDANCE, & HEALT

$3,146,532.04

APPROPRIATION REQUEST

REVISED BUDGET FY 2027

-$16,865.00

$35,955,946.52

$16,865.00

$2,846,731.59

$3,146,532.04

63 TRANSPORTATION

$2,829,866.59

64 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE

$4,998,359.24

$4,998,359.24

$0.00

$0.00

$1,955,691.61

$1,955,691.61

66 FACILITIES
68 TECHNOLOGY
TOTAL EXPENDITURES

REVENUE SOURCE

$48,903,261.00

BUDGET FY 2027

$0.00

$48,903,261.00

APPROPRIATION REQUEST

REVISED BUDGET FY 2027

$4,577,397.00

$4,577,397.00

SALES TAX

$27,590,462.00

STATE

($16,865.00)

$2,422,123.00

$2,422,123.00

FEDERAL
RECOVERED COSTS
LOCAL OPERATIONS MATCH

TOTAL REVENUES

$574,066.00

$16,865.00

$590,931.00
$13,739,213.00

$13,739,213.00

$48,903,261.00

$27,573,597.00

$0.00

$48,903,261.00

2027-005

PAGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD

RESOLUTION REQUESTING FY2027 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDING

WHEREAS, the Page County School Board has incurred capital improvement expenditures
during Fiscal Year 2027 for projects and improvements necessary to maintain and improve
school division facilities; and

WHEREAS, capital improvement expenditures totaling $202,512 have been incurred to date
and paid from the School Operating Fund; and

WHEREAS, these expenditures are appropriately attributable to capital improvement projects,
and the School Board desires to reimburse the School Operating Fund for these expenditures;
and

WHEREAS, the School Board has identified an additional capital improvement need involving
the drilling and completion of a well at a school division facility; and

WHEREAS, the estimated cost to drill the well is $24,500, with an additional estimated $25,000
required for the well pump, connection, and associated work necessary to place the well into
service, for a total estimated well project cost of $49,500; and

WHEREAS, the total Capital Improvement funding requested for expenditures incurred to date
and the completion ofthe well project is $252,012;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Page County School Board hereby

requests that the Page County Board of Supervisors provide $252,012 in Capital Improvement
funding for Fiscal Year 2027, consisting of:

$202,512 to reimburse the School Operating Fund for capital improvement expenditures
incurred and paid during Fiscal Year 2027;
$24,500 for the drilling of a well; and

$25,000 in estimated additional costs for the well pump, connection, and associated work
necessary to complete the well project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Page County School Board respectfully requests that

the Page County Board of Supervisors appropriate the requested funds to the appropriate School

Capital Improvement Fund for these purposes.
This is to certify that the foregoing resolution was authorized by the Page County School Board
during its regular meeting on Thursday, September 24, 2026.

Dnos E.Pant
Duane Painter, Chairman
Page County School Board

MarinComes
Marina Comer, Clerk

Page County School Board

2027-005

BUDGET AMENDMENT 2027-05
FUND 1 OPERATING
BUDGET FY 2027

APPROPRIATION REQUEST

REVISED BUDGET FY 2027

($252,012.00)

$35,703,934.52

EXPENDITURE FUNCTION
61 INSTRUCTIONAL

$35,955,946.52

62 ADMIN, ATTENDANCE, & HEALTH

$3,146,532.04

$3,146,532.04

63 TRANSPORTATION

$2,846,731.59

$2,846,731.59

64 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE

$4,998,359.24

66 FACILITIES

68 TECHNOLOGY
TOTAL EXPENDITURES

REVENUE SOURCE

SALES TAX

STATE
FEDERAL

RECOVERED COSTS

$252,012.00

$0.00

$0.00

$1,955,691.61

$48,903,261.00
BUDGET FY 2027

$1,955,691.61
$0.00

$48,903,261.00

APPROPRIATION REQUEST

REVISED BUDGET FY 2027

$4,577,397.00

$27,573,597.00

$5,250,371.24

$4,577,397.00

($252,012.00)

$2,422,123.00

$27,321,585.00

$2,422,123.00
$590,931.00

$590,931.00

LOCAL OPERATIONS MATCH

$13,739,213.00

$252,012.00

$13,991,225.00

TOTAL REVENUES

$48,903,261.00

$0.00

$48,903,261.00

CIP Needs FY 27
PO
0400-023
0400-095
0400-079
0400-077
0400-102
Invoice #003555
0400-106
0800-048

TOTAL

Cost
$29,151.00
$15,144.00
$33,750.00
$41,307.88
$7,155.26
$5,684.00
$44,149.80
$26,169.56
$32,465.00

$234,976.50
$252,012

Date

Location

Vendor

Description

all schools
PCHS
all schools

7/27/26
9/10/26
9/22/26
24,500.00
25,000.00

Riddleberger
Prevenetive Boiler Maintenance
Siemens
Fire Alarm Control Panel Upgrade
Riddleberger
Block Hour Agreement
Convergint
Fire Services Support Program
LES
Valley Doors
LES 3 Exterior Entrance Doors
LHS
Mountain Valley Home
Heat pump installation
Grounds Crew
Beverage Tractor
New Ventac mower with snow blower attachement
Dell Technologies
Server Upgrade for the Metasys Software
Wilson Well Drilling
SPFD Well
Well Pump

COUNTY OF PAGE
103 South Court Street, Suite F
Luray, Virginia 22835
(540) 743-4142
Fax: (540) 743-4533

Board of Supervisors:

Clifton “Bucky” Thomas -Chairman -AtLarge
Jeremy Baldwin -District I
Allen Louderback - District 2
Ryan Cubbage -District 3
S u s a n K i l e -District 4
Jeff Vaughan -District 5

County Administrator:
Amity Moler

TO:

Page County Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Tracy Clatterbuck, Zoning Administrator I

SUBJECT:

Proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments relating to short-term tourist rentals (Public Hearing)

DATE:

September 15, 2026

SUMMARY:
Multiple zoning ordinance amendments relating to short-term tourist rentals.
BACKGROUND:
On June 17, 2025, the Board of Supervisors held a retreat to discuss a number of topics, one of which was shortterm tourist rentals (STR’s). On September 2, 2025 a joint meeting was held between the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors to discuss a number of topics, again, one specifically being STR’s. As a result of that
joint meeting, the Board of Supervisors established a steering committee to focus on issues related to STR’s. The
steering committee met over the course of a few months. On March 2, 2026, Supervisor Cubbage presented findings
of the steering committee to the Board of Supervisors. As a result of that discussion, it was the consensus of the
Board of Supervisors to send the steering committee’s findings and proposed recommendations to the Planning
Commission for further consideration.
The draft that came out of the Planning Commission was presented to the Board back on August 3, 2026. In the
staff memo dated July 15, 2026 that was introduced to the Board, staff provided a number of recommendations of
language to be amended and/or removed due to enforcement concerns. During the introduction meeting, the Board
agreed to amend/and or remove the language as staff suggested. The attached draft dated 8/4/26 and the brief
description below reflect those changes.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
The following is a brief overview of the changes as currently drafted:
• In Article II (Word Usage and Definitions), amend Section 125-4 (Definitions) as follows:
o Add a new definition for “short-term tourist rental, owner-occupied.”
Summary: Adding a new definition for owner-occupied STR’s since there is protection in the state
code for owner-occupied rentals.
• In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-9 (Woodland-Conservation), amend Section 125-9.B(7)
relating to Bed and Breakfast Establishments and short-term tourist rentals permitted by-right.
Summary: In the W-C zoning district, striking STR’s in this line item and creating a separate use
since Bed and Breakfast Establishments and STR’s are not the same use.
• In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-9 (Woodland-Conservation), add Section 125-9.B(8)
relating to short-term tourist rentals permitted by-right and adjust numbering.
Summary: Adding in the W-C zoning district, the STR use by right if rental contains no more than
three bedrooms (subject to the supplemental regulations) and requiring that the rental either have
frontage on a public road or the parcel on which the dwelling is located is accessed by a private
lane or driveway that serves the rental and no more than two additional dwellings.
• In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-9 (Woodland-Conservation), add Section 125-9.B(9)
relating to “owner-occupied short-term tourist rentals, subject to the provisions of Section 125-30.21 (if

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
•

•

•

applicable)” and adjust numbering.
Summary: Adding in the W-C zoning district, the owner-occupied STR use and section number
adjustment.
In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-9 (Woodland-Conservation) add Section 125-9.D(21)
relating to short-term tourist rentals permitted by special use permit.
Summary: Adding in the W-C zoning district, the STR use by special use permit if any one or more
of the following apply: The rental contains four or more bedrooms and/or the rental is accessed
from a private lane or driveway that serves the rental and more than two additional dwellings.
In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-10 (Agriculture), amend Section 125-10.B(8) relating to
Bed and Breakfast Establishments and short-term tourist rentals permitted by-right.
Summary: Striking STR’s in this line item and creating a separate use since Bed and Breakfast
Establishments and STR’s are not the same use.
In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-10 (Agriculture), amend Section 125-10.B(9) relating to
short-term tourist rentals permitted by-right.
Summary: Adding in the A-1 zoning district, the STR use by right if rental contains no more than
three bedrooms (subject to the supplemental regulations) and requiring that the rental either have
frontage on a public road or the parcel on which the dwelling is located is accessed by a private
lane or driveway that serves the rental and no more than two additional dwellings.
In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-10 (Agriculture), add Section 125-10.B(10) relating to
“owner-occupied short-term tourist rentals, subject to the provisions of Section 125-30.21 (if applicable)”
and adjust numbering.
Summary: Adding in the A-1 zoning district, the owner-occupied STR use and section number
adjustment.
In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-10 (Agriculture) add Section 125-10.D(28) relating to
short-term tourist rentals permitted by special use permit.
Summary: Adding in the A-1 zoning district, the STR use by special use permit if any one or more
of the following apply: The rental contains four or more bedrooms and/or the rental is accessed
from a private lane or driveway that serves the rental and more than two additional dwellings.
In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-11 (Residential), amend Section 125-11.B(12) to read
“owner-occupied short-term tourist rentals, subject to the provisions of Section 125-30.21 (if
applicable)”.
Summary: Adding in the R zoning district the owner-occupied STR use.
In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-11 (Residential) add Section 125-11.D(9) relating to
short-term tourist rentals permitted by special use permit.
Summary: Adding in the R zoning district, the STR use by special use permit only.
In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-12 (Commercial), amend Section 125-12.B(9) by adding
“owner-occupied short-term tourist rentals, subject to the provisions of Section 125-30.21 (if
applicable).”
Summary: Adding in the C-1 zoning district the owner-occupied STR use.
In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-12 (Commercial), amend Section 125-12.B(13) by
adding language to reflect only one single-family detached dwelling is permitted.
Summary: Striking existing language in the C-1 zoning district to limit only one single-family
detached dwelling be permitted on any lot, tract or parcel of land.
In Article V (Supplementary Regulations), Section 125-30.21 (Short-term tourist rentals), multiple
amendments through entire section relating to short-term tourist rentals.
Summary: Multiple amendments to the supplemental regulations regarding STR’s.

Staff would also note that the proposed draft has been reviewed by the County Attorney.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION(S):
Staff created a draft based on direction from the Board of Supervisors and presented it to the Planning Commission
on May 26, 2026. The proposed amendments were discussed at length amongst the Planning Commission over the
course of several months. Staff would also like to point out that as far back as 2023, the Planning Commission has
discussed the short-term tourist rental (STR) use. Their efforts on this debatable topic over the years, should be
recognized. In general, the goal has always been to mitigate adjacent land uses and impacts of the use.
On July 14, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft amendments dated June 24, 2026.
There were six speakers from the public that spoke during the public hearing that were opposed to various parts of

the proposed draft. There were also four additional speakers during the citizen comments on agenda items period
that were opposed. The comments varied from concerns of overregulating STR’s in a way that discourages them,
the suggestion for commission and board members to visit some existing STR operations, the positive tax benefits
to the county that rentals generate, concerns over the two year ownership requirements affecting the property values
along with the lack of understanding how that particular requirement would advance public health, safety, and
welfare, the linkage between STR’s and why school population is declining as many can’t find long-term housing
and jobs, the support of reasonable rental regulations such as, life safety inspection, occupancy limits, property
management plan, etc., concerns related to the local employment opportunities rentals create and overregulating
them could hurt those employment opportunities, and the desire for the STR owners to be more involved with the
amendment process related to rentals. Staff has also received a number of written comments since the Planning
Commission public hearing notice was published. A copy of those comments have been included in the packet.
Staff would like to point out that over the course of being involved in the steering committee work, there have been
a number of written comments received from the public about STR’s prior to the notice of public hearing with the
Planning Commission. I think it is important to acknowledge all of the written comments that have been received
regarding this topic. It is nice to see people get involved and speak up regarding land use matters.
Once the Planning Commission’s public hearing was closed, the commissioners commented as follows:
• Ms. Catherine Grech explained that the commission had been discussing STR’s for the last two-three years.
There was a steering committee that was established as well to discuss this topic. She noted they [Planning
Commissioners] don’t all agree amongst themselves, and they don’t all agree with the Board. Her position
for several years has been and remains that STR’s should be by special use permit in the Residential,
Agriculture, and Woodland-Conservation zoning districts. She noted that the comprehensive plan tells us
to protect Agriculture and Woodland-Conservation. In her opinion, the draft ordinance only protects to the
highest degree of protection residentially zoned parcels. So she finds it difficult to support the draft. She
also noted that that didn’t mean that she didn’t agree with parts of the proposed draft though.
• Chairman Burner stated he could not support the two year ownership requirement. He also noted there are
components of the draft he liked, but there are components of the draft that in his opinion just don’t fit the
need or solve the problems they are trying to solve.
• Ms. Sandy Davis noted that the two year ownership requirement was not something they pulled from thin
air. Other localities are putting time limits on them because it slows down the growth of the rentals. A lot
of owners that have been doing this since 2011 and earlier, are experiencing real problems getting their
homes rented out because so many new investment type of rentals have been built are new builds. The
newer cabins offer a lot of amenities that are very different from original cabin owners that started the
business here. The regulations are meant to slow the growth of STR housing in Page County.
• Mr. Ken Johnson explained that based on surveys that have been conducted, the residents have said they
want the rural and agricultural character of Page County protected. In his opinion, STR regulations could
address these goals. It could be done by requiring a minimum parcel size that reflects the commercial
intensity or transient use rather than residential standards set for permanent neighbors. It could manage the
financial incentives to subdivide Agriculture and Woodland-Conservation land into the smallest legally
permissible parcels by making newly divided parcels ineligible for STR use for a defined period. In doing
so, it would require those who profit from Page County's rural character to contribute to its preservation.
For these reasons, he can't support the ordinance as it's drafted because it does none of these things. It
regulates how STR’s operate once they exist. It does not address whether, where, and at what density they
proliferate. He stated he was voting no to the draft, not because he opposes STR regulation. He supports
recent regulations, including many in the draft. He is concerned, however, that managing Page County's
growth consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and protecting its rural character are not accomplished by
the proposed ordinance.
• Mr. William Turner noted that the Planning Commission had been working on STR regulations for many
years. He stated it was time to send it to the Board and let them take care of the business that needs to be
taken care of.
Once the discussion amongst the Planning Commission was over a motion was made, and seconded, to recommend
approval of the draft to the Board. The motion failed with a 3-3 vote. A second motion was made, and seconded,
to recommend denial of the draft to the Board. That motion also failed with a 3-3 vote. With that being said, the
amendments come to the Board as a referral without recommendation from the Planning Commission.
PAGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Per Josh Hahn, Planning Director:

It would be impossible to include every item from the Comprehensive Plan that might be conceivably relevant to
short-term tourist rentals (STRs). Each of the goals below have several potentially relevant policies.
Goal 5: “Use the Comprehensive Plan and future land use map to guide land use and development
decisions.” (Volume 1-72).
• Goal 6: “Encourage and develop a diverse and viable local economy compatible with the County’s rural
character.” (Volume 1-74).
• Goal 8: “Support affordable and attainable housing for those who live or work in Page
County.” (Volume 1-76).
Goal 10: “Emphasize personal property rights during the planning process and while applying the
policies of this Plan.” (Volume 1-77).
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the balance of tourism, agriculture, and compatible business and residential
growth that requires proper planning. Chapter 1 states: “Page County’s vision for the future is to promote an
environment conducive to maintaining a rural quality of life, which enhances tourism and agriculture and protects
natural and cultural assets while encouraging compatible business and residential growth to provide a higher
standard of living for its citizens” (Volume 1-4).
•

In its deliberation over STR regulations, the Planning Commission has primarily focused on mitigating potential
adverse impacts on neighboring properties. More recently, the discussion has expanded to address the relationship
between STRs and the long-term housing market—a topic also evaluated by the Board-established steering
subcommittee in late 2025, which prompted the Commission's current work. Citizens have expressed a strong desire
for local data and broader engagement to clearly define the intersection of STRs and housing availability in Page
County. While housing affordability is a highly complex issue driven by macroeconomic factors, the expansion of
STRs and second homes naturally reduces the inventory available for permanent residents. During the July 14,
2026 public hearing, some property owners expressed concern that proposed restrictions, such as a two-year
ownership rule, could negatively impact property values. Because these regulations sit at the intersection of
community character, housing availability, and private property rights, staff recommends the Board take a
measured approach. Any proposed amendments should carefully balance the mitigation of neighborhood impacts
with the protection of property owner interests.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Access Requirements: As currently drafted, more than three dwellings on a private lane or driveway would require
a special use permit in the Agriculture and Woodland-Conservation zoning districts. If the Board decides to retain
this provision, I would encourage the Board to think about the following:
1) What specific factors will be considered when reviewing the SUP application? For example, will the review
be limited to access, safety, and the adequacy of the private lane, or will other factors be considered?
2) Will the county establish requirements for private-road maintenance during the review of the SUP? If so,
will the SUP require the property owner provide a specific amount of gravel, grading, snow removal, or
other maintenance toward the upkeep of the private lane? Is there a minimum width, road surface
requirements, grading and drainage requirements, minimum area for turning areas, sight distance
requirement, bridges or culverts requirements, etc.?
3) Will the county impose a fee specifically for private-road maintenance? If a fee is collected, how would
the fee be calculated, collected, and used, and would the County be responsible for maintaining the road.
(This is not likely, so how would staff enforce this?)
4) If the county is not going to regulate or participate in private-road maintenance, what specific publicinterest concern is the SUP intended to address? Is it road safety, emergency access, road capacity,
maintenance, traffic, drainage, or something else?
5) Would the same concerns exist regardless of whether it is a short-term rental or a long-term rental?
If the county does not intend to establish and enforce road-maintenance requirements, collect a road-maintenance
fee, or assume responsibility for maintaining the private road, what is the SUP intended to accomplish that could
not be addressed through objective access standards?
It is my opinion that road maintenance agreements need to start at the Subdivision of Land Ordinance when lots are
being divided and private roads and lanes are being created. Not when we are trying to address the short-term rental
regulations.

MOTION(S):
I move that the Board of Supervisors approve the attached amendments as drafted.
OR
I move that the Board of Supervisors deny the attached amendments as drafted.
OR
I move an alternative motion.
ATTACHMENT(S):
• Draft amendments dated 8/4/26

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Joshua Dyke
Tracy Clatterbuck
Re: Inquiry Regarding Potential New Short-Term Rental Regulations and Building Plans in Page County
Friday, July 17, 2026 9:02:27 PM

[NOTICE: DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is
safe. No email should ever ask you for your username or password.]

Hi Tracy,
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions and for providing information
on the proposed short-term tourist rental ordinance amendments.
I respectfully ask that the following comments be included in the Board of Supervisors
introduction packet and made part of the public record regarding the proposed
amendments.
I understand and support the County's goal of addressing legitimate concerns related
to short-term rentals. However, I believe some portions of the proposal could create
unintended consequences for property owners, future residents, and the local
economy.
One concern I have is the impact on people who purchase vacant land with the
intention of building a home. For example, someone could buy a parcel in an A-1 or
W-C district today, invest considerable money to build a home, install a well and
septic system, pay permit fees, hire local contractors, and become a member of the
community. After living there for several years, they may decide to move, retire,
relocate for work, or simply use the home as a short-term rental to supplement their
income. Under the proposed rules, that same property owner could find that their
ability to do so depends on whether their property is located on a private lane that
serves more than two other homes, something they often have no control over. To
many residents, that would feel unfair. The access road may have existed long before
the property was purchased. The owner did nothing wrong, followed every rule in
place at the time, invested in the county, and yet could face additional hurdles years
later when trying to make reasonable use of their property.
I also worry that the proposal may create winners and losers in the marketplace.
Existing short-term rental owners who are already operating may benefit from having
fewer future competitors, while new property owners face additional costs,
uncertainty, and regulatory obstacles. Healthy competition benefits visitors, property
owners, and the county. When fewer people are able to participate, opportunities
become concentrated among those who were fortunate enough to get established
earlier.
For many local families, land is more than just property. It is often their largest
financial asset. The value of a parcel is tied in part to the range of legal uses available

to it. When those potential uses are reduced, property values can be affected. This is
particularly important for residents who may one day need to sell land to pay medical
expenses, help family members, fund retirement, or navigate difficult economic
circumstances.
A good example might be a longtime Page County family that owns a few acres on a
private lane. They may not have substantial retirement savings, but they do have
land. The ability to build a home that could someday be used as a short-term rental
may increase both the property's usefulness and market value. Limiting that
possibility reduces options for families who are often relying on the value of their
property as part of their long-term financial security.
Tourism has long been an important part of Page County's economy. Visitors who
stay in short-term rentals spend money at local restaurants, stores, gas stations,
outfitters, wineries, and other small businesses throughout the county. I believe the
county can address concerns about safety, traffic, and neighborhood impacts without
unnecessarily restricting responsible property owners.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Board to consider:
1. Grandfathering protections for current property owners and those who
purchased land before any ordinance changes are adopted.
2. Protection for homes approved and built under current regulations, even if they
become short-term rentals at a future date.
3. Reconsideration of the proposed private-lane limitation where the property
owner has no ability to change the existing access conditions.
4. Policies that focus on addressing documented nuisance or safety issues rather
than broadly limiting reasonable property uses.
Page County has always been a place where people value private property, personal
responsibility, and the freedom to make reasonable use of their land. I hope the
Board will carefully consider how these proposed changes may affect future
homeowners, retirees, working families, and small property owners throughout the
county.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Joshua Dyke
Page County Resident



On Jul 16, 2026, at 3:34 PM, Tracy Clatterbuck
<[email protected]> wrote:

Joshua,

The Planning Commission held their public hearing on 7/14/26 on the amendments
related to short term rentals. The draft may be found here:
https://www.pagecounty.virginia.gov/288/Planning-Commission-Public-Hearings
The proposed draft will now be introduced to the Board of Supervisors in the coming
weeks. I do not know what that date is yet. You can check back with me toward the end
of next week and I should know when it will be introduced to them. In the meantime,
you can register for the Notify Me via our county website. You can register for
notification of upcoming board meeting agendas, minutes, etc.
https://www.pagecounty.virginia.gov/list.aspx
If you are interested in commenting on the proposed draft, I would recommend you
put your comments in writing to me so that they may be included in the Board
introduction packet.
At this time, I cannot answer what will be grandfathered and what will not be. That will
be up to the Board of Supervisors.
The only way to ensure that you fall under current regulations is to submit for a new
home packet and a community development review. This means you will need to have
all health permits for well and septic. I have attached the application packet.
Let me know if you have further questions.
Thank you,

Tracy Clatterbuck, CZA
Zoning Administrator I
Page County Planning & Community Development
103 S Court Street, Suite B, Luray, VA 22835
Office Phone: (540) 743-1324
Direct Line: (540) 843-3403
Work Cell Phone: (540) 892-3613
Website: www.pagecounty.virginia.gov
<image001.png>
From: Joshua Dyke <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2026 10:57 AM
To: Page BNZ <[email protected]>
Subject: Inquiry Regarding Potential New Short-Term Rental Regulations and Building
Plans in Page County

Dear Page County Zoning Office,
My name is Joshua Dyke, and I am a resident of Page County. I am writing to
request information and to document my inquiry for future reference.
My partner and I are interested in building one or possibly two properties in Page
County with the intention of operating them as short-term rentals (Airbnb or
similar) in the future. We have heard that the County may be considering new
regulations that could affect this type of investment, specifically a potential
requirement to owner-occupy the property for two years before it can be used as a
short-term rental.
To help us plan accordingly, I would appreciate clarification on the following:
1. If known, when is the scheduled vote or public hearing for these proposed
new regulations?
2. Will there be a grandfathering period for properties already in the planning or
permitting process? If so, what steps must be taken to ensure a property
qualifies as grandfathered in?
3. What information or documentation does the County require from us to begin
the process (e.g., pre-application meeting, site plans, zoning verification,
etc.)?
Thank you in advance for your assistance. We want to ensure full compliance
with all current and upcoming County requirements. Please let me know if you
need any additional information from me.
Best regards,
Joshua Dyke
<New Home Packet 25' (fillable).pdf>
<Community Development Review Application(fillable)!.pdf>

As owners of short-term rental (STR) properties in Page County since 2013, we are deeply
concerned about the proposed changes to the STR ordinance.
We moved to Page County in 2013 because we were drawn to its natural beauty, welcoming
community, and business-friendly environment. We immediately began investing in STR
properties, making them the foundation of our retirement plans and our long-term investment in
the county. Over the past 13 years, we have developed a strong partnership with local businesses.
Through our website, in-cabin brochures, and our Stay & Play packages, we actively encourage
our guests to visit local shops, restaurants, wineries, and attractions. Our guests love Wisteria
Vineyard, the businesses along Main Street in Luray, local restaurants and coffee shops, as well
as outdoor recreation providers such as Appalachian Outdoor Adventures, Shenandoah River
Adventures, zip line operators, and many others. More than 40% of our guests book package
deals that include these local businesses. All of this creates a true win-win-win relationship: our
guests enjoy an exceptional vacation experience, local businesses benefit from the tourism our
properties generate, and we have earned an approximately 35% return guest rate because visitors
love what Page County has to offer.
The economic impact extends far beyond our guests. We contract with a local cleaning company
that exclusively services our cabins and employs six people. We employ a local Maintenance
Manager, who in turn provides part-time work for others who assist him. We rely on local
HVAC, plumbing, electrical, pest control, and other service providers to maintain our properties.
Wedding venues depend on STRs to accommodate their guests, allowing them to host their
events. Grocery stores, liquor stores, florists, massage therapists, nail salons, and many other
local businesses all benefit from STR visitor spending. The success of our business supports
many other businesses and families throughout the county.
Several of the proposed ordinance changes would have devastating consequences for both our
business and our personal financial future.
New owners must first claim an STR as their primary residence for two years.
Our cabins were built specifically as vacation rentals. They were never designed to serve as
primary residences, lacking features such as offices, laundry rooms, coat closets, adequate
bedroom closets, and, in some cases, dishwashers. Requiring future owners to occupy them as
primary residences would effectively eliminate their market as STRs.
Because we cannot personally occupy all our properties as primary residences, this requirement
would force us to close our business. As we approach retirement, we plan to sell these properties
as successful, income-producing STRs. Their value is significantly higher because they are
established vacation rentals, fully furnished, and have a proven income history. Removing that
status would substantially reduce their value and jeopardize the retirement investment we have
spent years building.
Restrictions on STRs located on private roads.
Several of our cabins are located on private lanes and were built and approved by the County as
STRs. Under the proposed ordinance, they would exceed the new limits and become ineligible
for STR use, either by us or by future owners. Changing the rules after these investments were
made would be fundamentally unfair.

Limiting one STR per parcel.
Two of our cabins were built on a single parcel with full County approval. If either we or a future
owner were prohibited from operating both as STRs, the value of that property would effectively
be cut in half. The financial impact would be devastating.
We fully support responsible growth and responsible management of the STR industry.
Throughout our years in business, we have operated in full compliance with County regulations
and have worked hard to be good neighbors. We limit occupancy and the number of vehicles
allowed, prohibit tents, boats, and RVs, enforce quiet hours from 9:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m., and
maintain our properties to a high standard. We hire local residents, volunteer in our community,
donate complimentary stays to local fundraising efforts, and offer discounted stays to Page
County residents and their visiting family and friends.
It appears that the county may not have adequately managed the rapid growth of STRs following
COVID-19. If the County believes future growth should be slowed or limited while the impacts
of this growth are evaluated, we understand and support that goal. However, those changes
should not come at the expense of property owners who made substantial investments under the
existing rules.
We invested in Page County with the reasonable expectation that the regulations governing our
business would remain stable. Any new restrictions should apply prospectively—not to existing
licensed STR owners or to future purchasers of those legally established properties—provided
they continue to operate responsibly and remain in compliance with County requirements.
It may ultimately be that these concerns are unnecessary, as Virginia Code § 15.2-2307 appears
to prohibit applying these proposed changes to currently licensed STR properties or their future
owners. However, given the ongoing discussions and uncertainty surrounding these proposals,
we felt it was important to express our serious concerns should these changes be applied to
existing STR license holders or diminish the value and future sale of their properties.
Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your commitment to protecting both the
citizens and the small businesses that contribute to the success of Page County.
Jim and Lisa Franceschini
Luray Mountain Cabins

July 22, 2026
Page County Board of Supervisors
103 South Court Street
Luray, VA 22835
Dear Members of the Page County Board of Supervisors,
My name is Laura Castro. My husband, Cristian Gomez, and I are the owners of Canoe River
Retreat, a home we designed and built last year in Rileyville with our life savings.
We are a young family with a two-year-old daughter, and we both work full-time in Northern
Virginia. Like many families in our generation, our careers have taken us to where stable
employment exists, even though our dream is to one day live and retire in Page County.
Owning a home in a place as beautiful as Page County is simply not affordable for many young
families without finding creative ways to make the mortgage work. For us, operating one shortterm rental is not a way to get rich—it is what makes it possible for us to own a home in the
community we love.
Managing our rental has become a second full-time job. We take great pride in maintaining our
property and supporting the local economy. We hire local cleaners, landscapers, handymen,
contractors, and other small businesses that help us provide a wonderful experience for our
guests. In turn, our guests visit local restaurants, shops, wineries, parks, and attractions, bringing
tourism dollars into Page County.
I do not believe preserving our community and supporting responsible short-term rental owners
are mutually exclusive goals. In fact, I believe they go hand in hand.
For that reason, we are deeply concerned about several provisions in the proposed ordinance.
While we support reasonable regulations that address nuisance properties and irresponsible
operators, we respectfully believe some of the proposed requirements could have unintended
consequences for families like ours, local businesses, and the county's tourism economy.

Two-Year Ownership Requirement
This is our greatest concern.
Under the proposed ordinance, a future buyer of our home would have to wait two years before
becoming eligible to apply for a short-term rental permit.
That requirement could significantly reduce the number of qualified buyers interested in our
property and negatively affect its value.
More importantly, I respectfully ask the Board to consider these questions:

What problem is the two-year ownership requirement solving that cannot already be
addressed through enforcement of nuisance properties or existing regulations?
What evidence demonstrates that someone who has owned a property for 23 months is
likely to be an irresponsible operator, but after 24 months suddenly becomes a responsible
one?
I also worry that this provision may have the opposite effect of what was intended. Families like
ours often rely on rental income immediately after purchasing a property. Large investors, on the
other hand, are far more capable of purchasing properties and leaving them vacant for two years
before operating them. Ironically, this requirement may make it harder for local families to enter
the market while favoring larger investors with greater financial resources.

Property Size and Neighborhood Context
The proposed ordinance applies many of the same standards to properties simply because they
share the same zoning district, regardless of whether a home sits on a quarter-acre lot or several
acres with substantial separation from neighboring properties.
Lot size, setbacks, surrounding density, and the actual impact on neighboring homes deserve
consideration. A more tailored approach would better reflect the diversity of properties
throughout Page County.

Clarification of POA Roads
We respectfully request clarification regarding whether privately maintained Property Owners'
Association (POA) roads are considered public roads under the ordinance.
Many subdivisions contain roads maintained by their associations that function similarly to
public roads. Without a clear definition, future interpretations may vary from one zoning
administrator to another, creating uncertainty and inconsistent application of the ordinance.

County Enforcement of HOA Covenants
Private HOA or POA covenants are agreements between property owners and their associations.
If an association believes one of its rules has been violated, it already has mechanisms to enforce
those rules. We respectfully believe the County should avoid becoming responsible for
interpreting or enforcing private contractual agreements. Clarifying this section would help
prevent confusion and reduce the potential for inconsistent enforcement.

Distinguishing Small Owners from Large Commercial Investors
If the Board's concern is large-scale speculative investment, we respectfully encourage the
ordinance to address that issue directly.

The current draft treats a family that owns one short-term rental much the same as someone
operating dozens of investment properties.
Those are fundamentally different situations.
A more targeted approach could focus additional regulations on large commercial operators
while allowing responsible homeowners to continue contributing to the local economy. Such an
approach would better balance neighborhood preservation with property rights, tourism, and
economic development.
In closing, we respectfully ask the Board to continue refining this ordinance before taking final
action.
We believe Page County can adopt regulations that protect neighborhoods while also preserving
opportunities for responsible homeowners, supporting local small businesses, and maintaining
the vibrant tourism economy that benefits our entire community.
Thank you for your time, your service, and your thoughtful consideration of our comments. We
appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective and would be happy to answer any questions.
Respectfully,
Cristian Gomez & Laura Castro
Owners, Canoe River Retreat

22 July 2026
To Whom It May Concern:
We are writing you today to share concerns we have about the new potential restrictions in
Page County on Short Term Rentals (STRs), to include Special Use Permits and limits on nonowner-occupied properties.
As background, we own one STR, a 6-person occupancy cabin in Shenandoah Woods (Stanley).
We came to purchase the property 4 years ago, after renting it ourselves as guests many times
and having fallen in love with it and the local area. When it went up for sale, we jumped at the
opportunity to own such a beautiful property immersed in lovely Page County.
We live most of the time in Northern VA, a short 1 ½ hour drive away, and visit our cabin in
Stanley as often as we can. The rental business associated with it exists only to help us pay the
expenses on it. It is not a money-maker for us by any means. In fact, when we decide to retire,
we may choose to stop renting it and stay there a lot more often or even full time.
The narrative we’ve heard from some people who would like to see these new restrictions in
place paints a picture of nameless, faceless, corporate entities or wealthy “outsiders” who own
STRs in Page and rent them out purely for profit and without concern for the impacts on the
local landscape or economy. We are an example of many other STRs who do not fall into that
category.
We contribute to the local economy via the taxes we pay (property tax, TOT/lodging tax, sales
tax on goods and services, etc). We also employ local labor for all of our needs (cleaning,
maintenance, HVAC, pest control, and more).
The visitors who book our cabin come to the area to enjoy its natural beauty, and spend
money! They plan events and other experiences (weddings, tours, etc), eat in local restaurants,
shop in local businesses, and pay taxes on all of those things. If we make it less desirable for
them to rent, all of that tourism-based business and local revenue will feel the impact.
We have heard the concerns of local community members who feel that STRs are causing issues
with housing availability for local residents, elevated property tax assessments, and isolated
incidents of STRs in residential neighborhoods whose guests misbehave (loud parties, etc). We

do not mean to dismiss these valid concerns. However, we feel they do not paint a fair picture
of the STR landscape.
Our cabin is the perfect example: As it is not located in a typical residential neighborhood, it
does not take away a potential primary residence from a local resident, nor do we ever have
trouble with our guests throwing loud parties or taking up all of the available parking. Even if a
small number of county STRs are having these types of issues, I believe the majority of them are
not. We believe it should be possible to manage these isolated cases, while allowing all STRs to
continue to enrich the county’s revenue stream via tourism while providing many local
employment opportunities.
We thank you in advance for considering our voices when advocating for any upcoming county
policy changes.
Sincerely,
Katie and Joe Mazza
Page Valley Getaways
[email protected]
240-730-7072
www.pagevalleygetaways.com

Dear Supervisor Kile,
Thank you for your willingness to serve Page County and for the time and thoughtful
consideration you give to decisions that will shape its future. I appreciate the
opportunity to provide comments regarding the proposed revisions to the County's
short-term rental regulations.
As a property owner and investor in Page County, I recognize that reasonable
regulations are an important part of preserving the character of our community while
balancing the needs of residents, visitors, businesses, and property owners. My concern
is not with the existence of regulations, but with ensuring they are developed through
meaningful collaboration with those who have firsthand experience in this industry and
a long-term commitment to the County's success.
I also appreciate the County's stated intent to preserve Page County's rural atmosphere,
scenic beauty, open spaces, natural resources, watersheds, farmland, and the
Shenandoah River. Those qualities are precisely what drew my family to invest here.
They are not obstacles to responsible tourism—they are the very reason visitors come to
Page County and why many of us have chosen to invest in its future.
Responsible short-term rental owners have every incentive to protect these resources.
Our guests come because they want to experience the mountains, forests, rivers, farms,
and quiet beauty that make this region so unique. Preserving these natural assets is not
only good stewardship—it is essential to the long-term sustainability of tourism and the
local economy. I believe we share the same objective. The question is not whether these
resources should be protected, but how we can best accomplish that goal while also
respecting private property rights, encouraging thoughtful investment, and supporting
the many local businesses and families whose livelihoods depend upon tourism.
My family intentionally chose to invest in Page County because we believe deeply in its
future. We invested here because we saw a county that welcomed responsible
development, respected private property rights, and recognized tourism as an important
economic driver. Our investment represents far more than the construction of vacation
homes. It is a long-term commitment to the local economy and to the people who live
and work here.
Every cabin that is built creates work for local excavators, contractors, electricians,
plumbers, septic installers, landscapers, suppliers, cleaners, maintenance professionals,
and countless others. Every guest who visits supports local restaurants, wineries,
outfitters, retail shops, attractions, and small businesses throughout the County. The
economic impact of short-term rentals extends well beyond the property itself and
ripples throughout the local economy.
One of my greatest concerns is that many investors—including my family—made
significant financial commitments based upon the County's existing ordinances and
regulatory framework. Land purchases, engineering, financing, permitting,
infrastructure, and construction decisions are made years in advance and often require

substantial capital investment. Responsible investors make these commitments in good
faith, relying upon the rules that exist at the time those decisions are made.
While I fully recognize the County's responsibility to periodically review and improve its
regulations, I also believe that stability and predictability are essential to fostering
responsible investment. When significant changes are proposed, it is important to
consider not only their intended outcomes, but also their impact on those who have
already invested based upon the County's established policies, as well as those who may
be considering investing in Page County in the future.
Several of the proposed regulations raise concerns.
Requiring a property to be owned for two years before it may operate as a short-term
rental creates a significant barrier for those making substantial investments in Page
County. Such a delay fundamentally changes the financial feasibility of many projects
and could discourage future investment.
Likewise, limiting each parcel to a single short-term rental regardless of acreage,
eliminating existing by-right opportunities for accessory dwelling units, restricting
additional short-term rentals on private or gravel roads, and imposing new bedroom
limitations may unintentionally reduce the viability of thoughtfully planned properties
that are designed to fit within the rural character of Page County while contributing
meaningful economic activity.
I respectfully encourage the Board to consider whether these objectives can be achieved
through balanced alternatives developed in partnership with those who understand this
industry firsthand. The strongest policies are often those shaped through collaboration
among property owners, environmental stakeholders, local businesses, and County
leadership. Together, I believe we can protect the County's treasured landscape while
providing clear, predictable, and balanced regulations for those who invest responsibly
in this community.
Perhaps most importantly, I encourage the County to engage STR owners, Realtors,
lenders, contractors, property managers, hospitality professionals, environmental
advocates, and local business owners before adopting changes of this magnitude. These
stakeholders bring valuable experience and practical insight that can help create
regulations that protect neighborhoods while preserving property rights, encouraging
responsible investment, and sustaining the tourism economy that benefits so many
residents and businesses.
I believe there is an opportunity to create policies that preserve the unique character of
Page County while continuing to welcome responsible investment and tourism. These
goals are not in conflict. They are mutually reinforcing. Responsible stewardship of our
natural resources, thoughtful development, and a thriving tourism economy can—and
should—coexist.

The regulations adopted today will shape not only today's short-term rental market, but
also the confidence with which future families, entrepreneurs, and businesses choose to
invest in Page County for years to come. I hope the County will continue to be known as
a community that welcomes responsible investment, values collaboration, protects its
extraordinary natural resources, and creates policies that strengthen both its
neighborhoods and its economy.
Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your service to Page County. I
appreciate your willingness to listen to those of us who have invested here because we
believe in the future of this remarkable community.
Warm regards,
Patti Cotton McNeily, Page County (Rileyville) Property Owner

July 21, 2026
Page County Board of Supervisors
103 South Court Street
Luray, Virginia 22835
Dear Page County Board of Supervisors:
I respectfully ask that you not approve the proposed STR ordinance without a
clear grandfathering provision and a written legal analysis addressing existing
property rights.
I support strong rules governing noise, occupancy, parking, trash, safety, and
irresponsible management. Those provisions address legitimate neighborhood
concerns. The ownership restrictions do not.
Affected owners strongly prefer to work with the County on solutions, but they
are also consulting legal counsel. I mention this not as a threat, but because owners
and County taxpayers should not be forced into an expensive legal dispute that careful
collaboration could prevent. An attorney consulted by owners has preliminarily identified
potential due-process and property-rights concerns involving existing lawful uses,
property transfers, the two-year ownership requirement, and the undefined Community
Development Review process. Owners are also beginning to establish a shared legal
fund to obtain independent advice and, if necessary, protect their rights.
Existing lawful STRs and investments should be expressly protected. The
ordinance should clearly address sales, inheritance, entity transfers, pending
applications, issued permits, and construction already underway. Owners who invested
in reliance on the County’s existing rules should not have their rights determined later
through an undefined administrative process.
The two-year ownership prohibition does not address neighborhood impacts. It
measures neither noise, occupancy, parking, management, safety, nor nuisance history.
Two identical properties with identical operating plans could receive different treatment
simply because one deed is 23 months old and the other is 25 months old.
The SUP process already allows the County to evaluate compatibility, hear from
neighbors, impose conditions, and deny unsuitable applications. If an application
fails to meet the County’s standards, it can be denied on its merits. A two-year
prohibition adds nothing useful to that review.
The rule may also favor wealthy investors who can carry a property without
income for two years while excluding local families and smaller operators who

cannot. Buyers will account for two years of lost use in their offers, placing downward
pressure on the prices received by Page County sellers.
The Residential-district change is also significant. The draft appears to eliminate
the by-right path for every non-owner-occupied STR in a Residential district, regardless
of its parking, access, occupancy, management, or operating history. Local businesses,
such as Shenandoah River Outfitters, will surely be severely harmed if nearby
developments, predominantly operated as STRs today, are forced out of operation. The
Board should determine how many properties this change affects and why objective
operating standards would not be sufficient.
The Community Development Review process needs to be defined. The ordinance
does not clearly state its approval standards, decision deadline, treatment of existing
operations, required written findings, or appeal procedures. An owner should not risk
losing the continued use of a property through an undefined internal review.
This draft also seems incompatible with Page County's unusual dependence on
tourism. Cabins support restaurants, shops, cleaners, contractors, property managers,
and other local businesses. They should not all be characterized as homes removed
from the local housing supply. In fact, I constructed my Page County rentals from the
ground up precisely because I did not want to take existing housing from local families. I
added new structures, supported local trades, and expanded the County’s tax and
lodging base. Many other purpose-built cabins are likewise poor substitutes for
affordable local housing.
Finally, the private-lane provision should measure actual impacts rather than
simply count houses. The lane will be used whether a home is occupied by its owner,
a long-term tenant, or an STR guest. Lane condition, traffic, parking, maintenance,
emergency access, and documented problems are more meaningful than dwelling
count alone.
I respectfully ask the Board to:
• Obtain a written legal analysis before voting.
• Protect existing lawful uses, pending projects, and reasonable transfers.
• Remove the categorical two-year ownership prohibition.
• Reconsider the blanket SUP requirement in Residential districts.
• Define the Community Development Review and appeal process.
• Base private-lane restrictions on documented impacts.

Page County can protect neighbors without imposing arbitrary restrictions on
responsible owners or damaging a tourism economy on which many local
businesses depend. I respectfully ask you to pause and revise the ordinance before
taking final action.
Respectfully,
Robert M. Mitchell

Dear Members of the Board of Supervisor:
Thank you for taking the time to represent listen to my concerns regarding the
proposed short-term rental ordinance. We appreciate your willingness to
ensure my comments are heard.
My name is Claudia Munoz, and I am a short-term rental property owner in
Page County. I am writing to respectfully share my perspective as you
consider concerns regarding STRs in our community.
I understand that many residents are concerned about affordability, taxes, and
the character of our county. These are important issues, and I appreciate the
opportunity to contribute a balanced, fact-based perspective—while also
sharing my personal experience as a small, individual owner.
1. Personal Context and Ownership Reality
I believe it is important to begin with who I am, as not all STR owners fit the
same profile. I am not a real estate investor, I do not own multiple properties,
and I do not live outside of Virginia. I own one single cabin in Page County,
which is a personal passion project for me and my family.
This property was purchased with my personal funds—not backed by outside
investors—and it serves as a retreat for my family. After the loss of my
husband, a 24-year U.S. Army veteran, spending time in nature has become
especially meaningful. This cabin is not just a rental—it is a place of personal
significance that I am working to preserve and share responsibly.
2. Personal Use and Intent
I will continue to actively use and enjoy this property with my family even after
it is rented. This is not a commercial-only asset—it remains a personal retreat
that I am deeply connected to.
Renting it out is simply a way to help offset the costs of owning a second
home, including maintenance, upkeep, and property expenses. It was not the
primary motivation for purchasing the property. My primary reason was to
have a place for my family to spend time together in a peaceful, natural
setting.
3. Current Status and Commitment to the County
I have been traveling to the cabin as much as I can—investing time, effort,
and resources into improving and maintaining the property.
During this time, I have:
Hired local contractors and service providers
Purchased materials and supplies from local businesses

Invested in upgrades to ensure the property meets high standards
Spent consistent time in the community to ensure I am a responsible and
present owner
This reflects my commitment not just as a property owner, but as someone
actively contributing to the local economy and community.
4. The Two-year ownership requirement
My primary concern is the proposed two-year ownership requirement. This
rule creates an unnecessary hardship for buyers and sellers of short-term
rental properties. It discourages investment, reduces property values, and
prevents responsible new owners from operating their business for two years
despite their willingness to comply with all county regulations. This provision
could make it significantly more difficult for my to sell my property.
5. Supporting Local Owners While Preventing Over-Concentration by
Large Investors
As the county evaluates potential STR regulations, I respectfully encourage
an approach that prioritizes individual homeowners while thoughtfully
addressing concerns related to large-scale investment activity.
Page County could consider policies that allow local residents and small-scale
property owners to rent out a portion of their home or a single property to help
supplement their income. These types of locally owned STRs reflect the
original spirit of home-sharing platforms and help ensure that tourism-related
income remains within the community and benefits local families directly.
At the same time, it may be appropriate to explore safeguards that discourage
the expansion of multi-property STR ownership by large, out-of-area
investors. This could help avoid over-concentration, ease pressure on the
housing market, and maintain fair opportunities for local owners who are
personally connected to and invested in the community.
6. Local Economic Contribution
Even before operating as an STR, my property is already supporting the local
economy. STRs contribute through:
• Hiring local cleaners, landscapers, and maintenance workers
• Supporting contractors, electricians, and tradespeople
• Purchasing goods from local stores
• Promoting local restaurants, parks, and attractions to guests
This creates a ripple effect that supports jobs and small businesses
throughout the county.

7. Responsible Operation and Community Protections
I am committed to operating responsibly and have already have strict
measures to ensure minimal impact on neighbors, including:
•
•
•
•
•

Enforced quiet hours
No-party and no-event policies
Guest screening and rental agreements
Noise monitoring systems
Local property management with rapid response

These safeguards are designed specifically to address the concerns most
often raised about STRs.
8. A Balanced Path Forward
I fully understand that concerns exist and should be addressed. However,
broad restrictions may unintentionally impact responsible, small-scale owners
while failing to target the root causes of those concerns.
A more balanced approach—focused on enforcement, accountability, and
standards—would allow the county to preserve the benefits of STRs while
addressing legitimate issues.
Conclusion
Page County is a special place, and my connection to it is personal. I am not a
distant investor—I am someone who spends time here regularly, invests in the
community, and is committed to being a good neighbor.
I respectfully encourage the Board to consider policies that differentiate
between responsible, small-scale owners and problematic operators, and
to take into account the broader economic and personal contributions that
STRs bring to the county.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
Claudia Munoz
703-992-4320
120 Wildflower Ln
Luray, VA 22835

Dear Supervisor Kile,
I am writing to ask you to oppose the proposed changes to Page County's short-term
rental regulations that were forwarded from the Planning and Zoning Commission to the
Board of Supervisors.
I own property on Compton Hollow Road in Rileyville, here in District 4. I currently have
two short-term rental cabins under construction, with two more planned over the next
year or two. This is not a case of buying up existing homes and converting them. Every
one of these units is new construction, built from the ground up on land I own.
That distinction matters, and I hope the Board will weigh it carefully. Much of the
concern I hear about short-term rentals nationally has to do with investors purchasing
existing housing stock and pulling it off the market. What I am doing is the opposite. I
am adding buildings that did not exist before, and I am paying local people to build
them.
Everyone working on this project is from this area. My contractors are local. My
subcontractors are local. When these cabins open, my cleaners, my maintenance
people, and my landscapers will be local as well. Every dollar that comes into these
properties from a visitor gets spent again here in Page County, at the lumber yard, the
hardware store, the gas station, the restaurants in Luray and Stanley, and the
businesses that depend on people coming to the Valley.
The proposals in front of you would put an end to projects like mine. Limiting every
parcel to a single short-term rental regardless of acreage, and eliminating the by-right
ADU, would cut a four-unit plan down to one. The two-year ownership requirement
would stall projects that are already underway and discourage anyone from starting new
ones. The restrictions on private and gravel roads would affect a great deal of the
buildable land in this county, since that describes much of where people actually live
and build out here. Bedroom limits would reduce what each property can support, which
reduces the work available to everyone downstream of it.
I understand that reasonable regulation is part of doing business, and I am not opposed
to rules. I would gladly support standards around septic capacity, parking, noise, fire
safety, and responsible operation. Those address real concerns without shutting down
investment. What these proposals do instead is cap growth outright, and the people
who feel that first are not the property owners. It is the framers, the electricians, the
plumbers, the housekeepers, and the small businesses that serve the visitors those
properties bring in.
I would also ask the Board to consider how this was developed. As far as I can tell, the
people who work in this industry every day were not consulted in a meaningful way.
There is a lot of practical knowledge among the owners, contractors, property
managers, and Realtors in this county, and a process that includes them would produce
better regulation than one that does not.

Tourism is one of the few economic engines Page County has. Our proximity to
Shenandoah National Park and the Skyline Drive is an advantage most counties would
envy. Restricting the lodging supply that serves those visitors does not protect the
county. It sends that business and the jobs attached to it somewhere else.
Thank you for your service to District 4 and for taking the time to consider this.
Respectfully,
Peter Pettis
Compton Hollow Road, Rileyville, VA

Cabins at Deer Run L.L.C.
Shenandoah, VA 22849
(540) 435-6201

To whom it may concern,
Thank you for taking the time to represent our concerns regarding the proposed short-term
rental ordinance. We appreciate your willingness to ensure our comments are heard.
We are owners and operators of eleven short-term rentals in Page County to include the following:
Spotted Fawn 2012, Cuddly Cub 20 I 5, Hobbit House 2018, Eagle's Nest 2019,
Fox Den 2022, Cuckoo's Nest 2023, Granny Squirrel 2024, Rascally Rabbit 2025, Hooty Owl 2025,
Trestle View 2025, and Red Caboose 2026. We invested in these propertiesto provide aquality
vacation experience for visitors while supporting our family's financial future and contributing
to the local economy. We take pride in operating responsibly. maintaining our property, and
being good neighbors.
Whilewe support reasonable regulations that promote safety and responsible short-term
rentals, we have several concerns with the current proposal.
Our primary concern is the proposed two-year ownership requirement. This rule creates an
unnecessary hardship for buyers and sellers of short-term rental properties. It discourages
investment, reduces property values, and prevents responsible new owners from operating
their business for two years despite their willingness to comply with all county regulations.
This provision could make it significantly more difficult to buy, sell, or even keep a property if
circumstances change in the future.
We also request clarification regarding the county's definition of bedrooms and sleeping
accommodations. Many vacation homes include recreation rooms, lofts, theater rooms, or
bonus rooms that provide additional sleeping space for families but are not legally designated
as bedrooms. We ask that the ordinance clearly define how these spaces will be treated so
property owners understand how occupancy limits will be determined.
These proposed regulations affect much more than property owners. They directly impact our
family, our investment, and our plans for the future. They also affect the local people and
businesses that rely on short-term rentals for their livelihood, including cleaners, contractors,
landscapers, maintenance workers, suppliers, and other small businesses that provide
services to our property. Visitors who stay in our rental also support local restaurants, shops.
attractions, andother businesses throughout the county. Restricting short-term rentals will have
a ripple effect across the local economy.
Our goal is not to oppose reasonable oversight. We support regulations that promote safety,
protect neighboring property owners, and encourage responsible short-term rental operations.
We respectfully askthat the county reconsider the two-year ownership requirement and provide
clearer language regarding occupancy, sleeping accommodations, and accessory structures
before adopting these regulations.
Thank you for your time, your consideration, and for representing our concerns.
Sincerely,

Steven W Shelton
Proprietor

Page County Board of Supervisors
103 South Court Street
Luray, Virginia 22835
Dear Page County Board of Supervisors:
Please clarify that an approved nonconforming STR use conveys with the property after a
sale. My property has operated as an STR since 2006, and I bought it in 2019. Requiring a
buyer to wait two years (and imposing other new standards) would sharply reduce its value
and may conflict with Virginia law by changing the land use rights that existed when I
purchased it. This two-year rule/non conveyance of land rights will put local companies out
of work who have been employed by this property for 20 years should I sell and STR rights
not convey
•

Please clarify whether a road maintained by a POA road qualifies as a "public road".

•

The two-year ownership rule eYectively functions as a ban on any new STR. STR
revenue supports local cleaners, plumbers, landscapers, and other contractors
while generating county taxes. As a remote owner, nearly all revenue goes back into
the local workforce when I choose not to occupy my vacation home (i.e. plumbers,
pest control, hvac, appliance repair, handymen, landscapers, cleaners, etc.) as I
can't do these tasks remotely. Local county owners do not provide the same benefit
to Page County as they are more able to perform this work themselves.
o One example. On many occasions, I have needed to pay an HVAC person to
show up, only to find they were using the thermostat incorrectly. This is an
extra several hundred dollars paid to a Page County worker that wouldn't
happen with a local owner. Local owners stop by to fix thermostat issues
without paying the HVAC company. Multiply this by simple toilet fixes or
appliance fixes that employ our local workforce across all STRs. Based on my
own numbers alone easily 5 times what we pay in (15.5%) lodging taxes goes
to employ the local workforce across all STRs. I spend much more on work
for the STR than I do on my own home.
o After paying local companies for upkeep, STRs rarely turn a profit. It's
mainly local owners who treat STRs as a passion project. If it were wildly
profitable, major corporations would buy STRs and I doubt that's the
case

•

In Residential districts, homes on small lots may justify restrictions. A three-acre
parcel is diYerent from a small lot. Please consider giving Residential parcels of
three acres or more the same by-right path as qualifying A-1 and W-C STRs.

Mark Talbot
[email protected]
Short term rental, owner (Rileyville)

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Colton W. Wolf
Tracy Clatterbuck; Bucky Thomas; Jeremy Baldwin; Allen Louderback; Ryan Cubbage; Susan Kile; Jeff Vaughan
Does Your Draft Solve the Problem? Signatures from Your Community in Support of Stronger STR Regulation
Wednesday, July 22, 2026 9:12:13 AM
DOES THE DRAFT SOLVE THE PROBLEM_ A Problem-by-Problem Review of the Planning Commission"s Proposed
STR Regulations (1).pdf

Good Morning, Board of Supervisors/Planning Commission Members -Please find attached Does the Draft Solve the Problem? A Problem-by-Problem
Review of the Planning Commission’s Proposed STR Regulations, submitted for your
consideration as you continue reviewing proposed regulations for short-term rentals
in our beautiful Page County community.
This document has been reviewed and signed by 20 community members who
support stronger, more comprehensive regulation of short-term rentals. The
signatories recognize that the current draft contains meaningful operational
standards related to noise, parking, occupancy, safety, lighting, and property
management. However, we remain deeply concerned that the proposal does
not adequately address the broader effects of continued STR growth on
housing affordability, neighborhood stability, rural land conservation,
and the long-term character of Page County.
The attached review identifies several areas where additional safeguards should be
considered, including:
Limits on the number of STR permits held by a single owner or entity;
Density or concentration limits by neighborhood, street, zone, or percentage
of housing stock;
Stronger renewal, inspection, enforcement, and permit-revocation
procedures;
Individual review of new non-owner-occupied STRs in agricultural and
woodland conservation districts;
Larger minimum parcel requirements for new STRs in rural areas; and
A temporary moratorium on new non-owner-occupied STR permits while the
County completes its regulatory review.
We respectfully ask both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to
carefully consider these recommendations before advancing or adopting a final
ordinance. Operational rules are important, but they cannot, by themselves, address
the cumulative effects of a rapidly growing commercial lodging industry on our
housing supply, rural landscape, residential neighborhoods, and growing tax burden.
The 20 individuals signing this document represent community members from
various Districts who want to see Page County adopt a fair, enforceable, and forwardlooking regulatory framework for Short Term Rentals. Our intention is not to

eliminate short-term rentals, but to ensure that their continued growth is managed
responsibly and does not come at the expense of permanent residents or the qualities
that make Page County a desirable place to live and raise a family.
Thank you for your time, your service to the community, and your thoughtful
consideration of the attached document and its recommendations. We ask that it be
included in the public record associated with the County’s ongoing review of shortterm rental regulations.
Respectfully,
Colton Winchester Wolf - MPS, PMP (District 3), on behalf of the undersigned
Page County community members
[email protected]
540.244.9175
###

Colton W. Wolf - MPS, PMP

Founder & Principal
White Wolf Communications Group
Cell: 540-277-0715
Email: [email protected]
Website: whitewolfcg.com
P.O. Box 251, Stanley, VA - 22851

DOES THE DRAFT SOLVE THE PROBLEM?
A Problem-by-Problem Review of the Planning Commission's Proposed STR Regulations

BOTTOM LINE

The draft has real substance on day-to-day operational standards- noise, parking, safety. But it has almost
nothing addressing the three things residents care most about: growth rate, affordability, and land
conservation. Density limits, ownership caps, a verified owner-occupied standard, real ongoing
enforcement, and a temporary moratorium on new non-owner-occupied permits are the additions that
would close this gap and every one of them has precedent already operating in another Virginia locality.
NOT ADDRESSED

1. Explosive Growth & Outside Investment
The draft's only tools touching scale are a registry (transparency, not a limit), a two-year ownership rule before
applying, and a one-STR-per-parcel cap. None of these slow-growth or address the fact that over half of Page
County's STRs are owned outside the county.
Why it falls short:
• The two-year rule delays an investor, it doesn't stop one. An LLC can simply hold land for two years,
then apply as planned.
• “One STR per parcel” doesn't stop a single investor or corporation from acquiring many parcels, each
with its own permit.
• There's no restriction on corporate or LLC ownership at all.
How to improve it:
Add a permit cap per owner/entity, not just per parcel. Prohibit corporate or LLC ownership of permits outrighta mechanism that applies uniformly regardless of where the entity is based. Virginia law already permits
capping a lessee or sublessee at one STR per locality (§ 15.2-983(D)) showing numeric caps are within the
state's contemplated authority.
NOT ADDRESSED

2. Housing Affordability & Tax Burden
Nothing in the draft engages with housing supply or affordability. It's an operational and safety ordinance, not a
housing-preservation one. There is no density cap, no limit on STRs as a share of housing stock, nothing that
slows the conversion rate driving the tax reassessment spike.
How to improve it:
Add a cap on STRs as a percentage of housing stock, by zone or by street. Hampton already does this in
Virginia: the city is divided into 51 zoned districts, each capped at 1% of properties, with a 300-foot minimum
separation between STRs. Several Hampton zones have already reached capacity, proving the model works in
practice.
PARTIALLY ADDRESSED

3. Neighborhood Character
This is the strongest part of the draft. It requires a property management plan (noise, parking, trespassing,
emergency contact), a concept plan, occupancy limits (2 persons/bedroom), fire ring controls, downward-facing
lighting, and landscaping buffers near property lines- real standards addressing noise, parking, and safety.
1

Where it still falls short:
• These rules govern how one STR behaves, not how many can cluster in a neighborhood. A street could
be fully “compliant” property-by-property and still lose most of its permanent residents.
• Enforcement is a one-time inspection at issuance or transfer, no ongoing audits, no fine schedule, no
revocation process for repeat violations.
How to improve it:
Add density limits per street or neighborhood. Virginia Code § 15.2-983(C) already allows a registry ordinance
to revoke a property's STR eligibility after more than three violations. Page County's draft doesn't use this
authority. Pair it with recurring renewal and re-inspection (Fairfax issues two-year permits; Bedford requires
annual re-registration) instead of a one-time check at issuance.
CONFIRMED PROBLEM

4. Rural Land & Agricultural/Woodland Zones
The proposed rules allow STRs with three bedrooms or fewer to be approved by right in our agricultural and
woodland conservation zones- no SUP, no hearing, no case-by-case review of neighborhood impacts. These
zones are what make Page County a great place to live.
The proposal also continues this commercial use on very small parcels of land. This makes conflicts with
residents likely while carving up our rural community into suburban style plots.
How to improve it:
Require individual review for all new non-owner-occupied STRs in agriculture and woodland conservation
zones. Require larger parcels of land (10+ acres)for all new STRs.

WORTH PURSUING

5. Should the County Consider a Moratorium?
At 7.3% of housing stock already converted to STRs, roughly six times the national average, and a draft that
doesn't meaningfully slow new growth, a temporary pause on new permits is a reasonable, well-precedented
option.
The precedent:
Hampton City Council halted new STR permits in August 2023 for the specific purpose of buying time to
finalize stronger regulations, essentially the same position Page County is in today, mid-review with an
unfinished draft.
The limitation:
Virginia Code § 15.2-983 prohibits requiring a special use permit for STRs that are the owner's
legally-occupied primary residence, for ordinances enacted after December 31, 2023. A moratorium should
therefore be scoped specifically to new non-owner-occupied/investment STR permits, which is also the exact
category driving the growth numbers, rather than freezing all new STR activity across the board.

COLTON W WOLF – MPS, PMP

ON BEHALF OF THE UNDERSIGNED
RESIDENTS OF PAGE COUNTY, VA.
2

Alan Alhades District 2
2.​
Sherry Ford, District 2
3.​
Caryn Ernst District 2
4.​
Jennifer Orenic, District 2
5.​
Josh Silverman, District 2
6.​
Tom Mack, District 4
7.​
Lesley Mack, District 4
8.​
Krista Ernst, District 2
9.​
Denise Cave, District 5
10.​ Colton W. Wolf, District 3
11.​ Rebecca Roesch, District 2
12.​ Babette Thorpe, Page Valley Rd., District 1
13.​ John Rice, Page Valley Rd., District 1
14.​ Stephanie Baker, District 4
15.​ Del Price, District 4
16.​ Ralph Riddle, 1132 Jewell Hollow Road
17.​ Karen Riddle, 1132 Jewell Hollow Road
18.​ Derek Goebel, Rileyville
19.​ Samuel Smith
20.​ Geraldine Smith
1.​

3

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Joshua Anton
Amity Moler; Tracy Clatterbuck
Joshua Hahn; Gage Wilson; Vivian Horng
Comments on Proposed Short-Term Tourist Rental Amendments
Friday, July 31, 2026 3:34:07 PM

[NOTICE: DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is
safe. No email should ever ask you for your username or password.]

Dear Amy, Tracy, and Members of the Board,
My name is Joshua Anton, and I am the Co-Founder of Horizon Shenandoah, a locally owned
hospitality company investing in the future of tourism in Page County.
Today, we operate two short-term rentals and have three additional homes under construction
that are expected to open this fall. Looking ahead, we also plan to continue investing in Page
County by developing several additional homes over the coming years. Overall, Horizon
Shenandoah represents a multi-million-dollar investment in Page County, and we are
committed to continuing that investment for years to come. We believe deeply in the longterm future of Luray and Page County and hope to play a small role in strengthening both its
tourism economy and local community.
First, I want to thank the Board and County staff for the time and effort that has gone into
reviewing the proposed amendments. I recognize the difficult balance the County is trying to
strike between preserving affordable housing for local residents while also supporting one of
Page County's most important economic drivers - tourism.
This topic is also personal to me.
As a senior in high school, I was kicked out of my house. I worked three jobs while attending
school full time to put myself through college. If it had not been for my best friend's mother
opening her home to me and providing an affordable place to live, I would not be where I am
today. Because of that experience, I genuinely can emphasize with why many residents are
concerned about housing affordability and why the County wants to ensure future generations
can continue to live and work in Page County.
At the same time, tourism is one of Page County's greatest economic strengths. Short-term
rentals bring visitors who support local restaurants, shops, attractions, and small businesses
while generating tax revenue that helps fund County services.
At Horizon Shenandoah, we try to contribute in a meaningful way. We hire local construction
crews, cleaners, landscapers, and maintenance professionals. We purchase supplies from local
businesses whenever possible—from Broad Porch Coffee for the coffee we provide our guests
to local markets and retailers throughout the County. Like many responsible operators, we
believe successful tourism should directly benefit the surrounding community.
For those reasons, I support the County's goal of addressing housing concerns. My request is

simply that the ordinance take a targeted approach that protects existing investments while
continuing to encourage new housing construction.
I respectfully ask the Board to consider two amendments:

1. Grandfather Existing Properties and Projects Already
Underway
Please consider grandfathering existing lawful short-term rentals and projects already
permitted or under active construction with respect to the proposed two-year ownership
requirement.
Many property owners, including Horizon Shenandoah, made substantial investments based
on the regulations currently in place. We have owned our parcels since November 2025, have
invested significant capital into both our existing rentals and the three homes currently under
construction, and are scheduled to open those homes this fall. Applying a new two-year
ownership requirement immediately, without a transition provision, could significantly impact
projects that were planned, financed, and permitted under the existing rules.
Providing a grandfathering provision for existing lawful STRs and projects already underway
would create a fair transition while still allowing the new policy to apply prospectively.

2. Exempt Newly Constructed Single-Family Homes from
the Two-Year Ownership Requirement
Unlike converting an existing home into a short-term rental, newly constructed homes increase
the County's housing inventory. Encouraging new construction helps create local construction
jobs, expands the County's tax base, and adds to the overall housing supply rather than
competing for the existing housing stock.
Providing an exception to the two-year ownership requirement for newly constructed singlefamily homes would continue to encourage responsible private investment while remaining
aligned with the County's objective of increasing housing supply. Every newly constructed
home adds inventory to the County, whether it ultimately becomes a primary residence, longterm rental, or short-term rental, and helps support the local construction industry in the
process.
I believe these two targeted amendments would preserve the intent of the ordinance while
minimizing unintended consequences for projects already in progress and continuing to
encourage investment that benefits both residents and visitors alike.
Thank you for your consideration and for the thoughtful work you are doing on this issue. I
appreciate the opportunity to share my perspective and hope you will consider these two
modest amendments as the Board continues its discussion.
Respectfully,
Joshua Anton
Co-Founder, Horizon Shenandoah  

Co-Founder, Horizon Shenandoah

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Ryan Bontempo
Tracy Clatterbuck; Amity Moler; Bucky Thomas; Jeremy Baldwin; Allen Louderback; Susan Kile; Jeff Vaughan
Request to Be Included as a Concerned Property Owner
Thursday, July 30, 2026 10:28:53 AM

[NOTICE: DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is
safe. No email should ever ask you for your username or password.]

Hello,
I would like to be included as a concerned property owner in the legal notice being submitted
to the Page County Board of Supervisors regarding the proposed Short-Term Rental
Ordinance.
I understand that being listed does not make me a client of the attorney, does not commit me
to taking legal action, and does not create any financial obligation.
Please include my property as follows:
Property Owner: Ryan Bontempo Dennis Bontempo
Property Address:
0 Hillside Dr
Stanley, VA 22851
For additional context, the property consists of four adjoining lots that were purchased with
the intention of developing three 555-square-foot cabins. These cabins are being designed
and marketed specifically as couples' getaway retreats, with an intended occupancy of two
guests per cabin. The project was planned in reliance on the zoning regulations that permitted
short-term rentals at the time the property was acquired.
Please let me know if you need any additional information from me.
Thank you,
Ryan Bontempo Dennis Bontempo

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Lair D. Haugh
Bucky Thomas
Amity Moler; Tracy Clatterbuck; Jeremy Baldwin; Allen Louderback; Ryan Cubbage; Susan Kile; Jeff Vaughan
Comments/Opposition to Short-Term Rental amendments as now proposed
Thursday, July 30, 2026 3:33:35 PM
Walls Letter Final 7-30-26.pdf

(Letter attached for inclusion in minutes - text of letter here - please Ms. Moler or
Clatterbuck acknowledge receipt. Thanks!)
Re: Objection and Opposition to Proposed Short-Term Rental Restrictions as applied
to Existing Short-Term                 Rentals
Good afternoon,
I represent Page Valley Estates L23 LLC, Page Valley L49, LLC and Page
Valley L50S1 LLC, and Robert & Melissa Mitchell, which all own short-term rental
properties in Page County.
I also have been contacted by the following owners who I do not formally
represent: Giselle Camacho; Donald Garner (owner of Garnerland); River Pines LLC;
River Burch Retreat LLC; Cullin Tate; Moccasin Investments LLC; Blue Stone
Designs LLC; Mazza Getaways LLC DBA Page Valley Getaways; Ron Rowch and
Laurie Forbes-Stillwater; Ryan Bontempo & Dennis Bontempo; J.D. Cave of
Shenandoah Woods; Claudia Munoz; Moshe Zidele (Shenandoah Vacation LLC);
Helms Mountain Vacation LLC; Christine Sennott; Laura Castro; Lisa Gander, Shari
Rowles, Turtle Rock Cabins LLC, Christian Gomez, and, a part of the community for
50+ years, Shenandoah River Outfitters.
IN SUMMARY: These owners primarily oppose the proposed language of
amendments to Section 125 of the county code that would prohibit continued use of
an existing short-term rental upon sale or transfer (whether owned by individual(s) or
business entity) forcing a two year holding period prior to re-application, which
application may of course be denied.
The proposed restrictions also affect some existing short-term rentals on
smaller lots, or with access that would not meet the new requirements, or other such
issues that are specific to their situation. These owners support and request
grandfathering and exempting all existing short-term rentals from resale and transfer
restrictions, and any other restrictions that would make the continued use or transfer
impossible.
REQUEST:
1. Table the current draft.
2. Schedule a time for a work session with impacted stakeholders and property
owners to allow for problem solving.
3. EXEMPT existing short-term rentals from restrictions that would make continued
use impossible or financially unviable.

            JUSTIFICATION: My clients vehemently oppose the proposed restriction on
resale of currently operating short-term rentals. My clients acquired and developed
their real estate assets in direct reliance on the then existing zoning framework,
which explicitly permitted short-term leasing. My clients structured substantial,
investment-backed expectations based entirely on the county's active zoning rules,
which explicitly authorized short-term rentals.
Prohibiting the future sale of these existing investment properties strips the
properties of their core market utility and destroys their commercial value. Any future
short-term rentals will know in advance of the restrictions and can consider those
restrictions in deciding whether to invest or not.
            In our view, prohibiting the use of an existing short-term rental property as a
short-term rental after its sale constitutes a regulatory taking and it also strips the
properties of their core market utility and destroys their commercial value. An ‘inverse
condemnation’, if you will.
            I should also mention that Page County residents will suffer along with
everyone else. Any of them that have invested their retirement, or other, funds in a
short-term rental will have a property that is no longer commercially viable. It may
force sales at less than value. It may make borrowing for repairs of the short-term
rental impossible if the value drops.
My clients are not likely to just walk away and let the property go to
foreclosure, but I don’t know about the financial pressures of other owners if they find
the commercial value can’t support the debt. If the market value goes down every
other county property owner that has to get an appraisal for a loan will be negatively
affected by discount sales. This is a real problem as anyone that lives in an area
where a house has been sold in foreclosure can tell you. They cannot sell for what
their house is worth because the comparable sales are low. Maybe they can’t even
sell enough to pay off their current debt.
Another issue is how to address properties that are currently in design, or
under construction. For instance, the Bontempos purchased four adjoining lots that
were purchased with the intention of developing three 555-square-foot cabins.
These are small cabins, almost a “tiny-home”. These cabins are being designed and
marketed specifically as couples' getaway retreats, with an intended occupancy
of two guests per cabin. The project was planned in reliance on the zoning
regulations that permitted short-term rentals at the time the property was acquired.
            As you can see there are a lot of concerns that need to be fully explored prior
to enacting the amendments. The other proposed restrictions in the draft are pretty
strict, and the current owners may have additional concerns with the burden of
compliance not raised herein. But the primary threat to everyone’s financial well being
is subjecting existing short-term rentals to restrictions that damage the value or even
prevent them from following through with their plans (like the Bontempos).
Thanks for considering these issues. Page County is not alone in seeking to
address short-term rentals but this can be a win-win if everyone’s concerns are
addressed before passing the amendments.
                                                                            Very truly yours,
                                                                            Lair D. Haugh

Lair D. Haugh, J.D.
Haugh & Haugh, PC
435 Park St.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Voice - 434-296-0185
Fax - 434-296-1146    
Email communications are not secure, may not be read every day, and can be lost
prior to delivery. The information contained in this message may be privileged and
confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify me immediately by replying to the message and
deleting it from your computer.

July 30, 2026
Clifton Thomas, Chair
Page County Board of Supervisors
Amity Moler, County Administrator
Page County, Virginia
Tracy Clatterbuck, Zoning Administrator
Page County, Virginia
BY EMAIL ONLY
Re: Objection and Opposition to Proposed Short-Term Rental Restrictions as applied
To Existing Short-Term Rentals
Dear all,
I represent Page Valley Estates L23 LLC, Page Valley L49, LLC and Page Valley L50S1 LLC,
and Robert & Melissa Mitchell, which all own short-term rental properties in Page County.
I also have been contacted by the following owners who I do not formally represent: Giselle
Camacho; Donald Garner (owner of Garnerland); River Pines LLC; River Burch Retreat LLC; Cullin
Tate; Moccasin Investments LLC; Blue Stone Designs LLC; Mazza Getaways LLC DBA Page Valley
Getaways; Ron Rowch and Laurie Forbes-Stillwater; Ryan Bontempo & Dennis Bontempo; J.D. Cave
of Shenandoah Woods; Claudia Munoz; Moshe Zidele (Shenandoah Vacation LLC); Helms Mountain
Vacation LLC; Christine Sennott; Laura Castro; Lisa Gander, Shari Rowles, Turtle Rock Cabins LLC,
Christian Gomez, and, a part of the community for 50+ years, Shenandoah River Outfitters.
IN SUMMARY: These owners primarily oppose the proposed language of amendments to
Section 125 of the county code that would prohibit continued use of an existing short-term rental upon
sale or transfer (whether owned by individual(s) or business entity) forcing a two year holding period
prior to re-application, which application may of course be denied.
The proposed restrictions also affect some existing short-term rentals on smaller lots, or with
access that would not meet the new requirements, or other such issues that are specific to their
situation. These owners support and request grandfathering and exempting all existing short-term
rentals from resale and transfer restrictions, and any other restrictions that would make the continued
use or transfer impossible.
REQUEST:
1. Table the current draft.

Clifton Thomas, Chair
July 30, 2026
Page 2
2. Schedule a time for a work session with impacted stakeholders and property owners to allow for
problem solving.
3. EXEMPT existing short-term rentals from restrictions that would make continued use
impossible or financially unviable.
JUSTIFICATION: My clients vehemently oppose the proposed restriction on resale of
currently operating short-term rentals. My clients acquired and developed their real estate assets
in direct reliance on the then existing zoning framework, which explicitly permitted short-term
leasing. My clients structured substantial, investment-backed expectations based entirely on the
county's active zoning rules, which explicitly authorized short-term rentals.
Prohibiting the future sale of these existing investment properties strips the properties of their
core market utility and destroys their commercial value. Any future short-term rentals will know in
advance of the restrictions and can consider those restrictions in deciding whether to invest or not.
In our view, prohibiting the use of an existing short-term rental property as a short-term rental
after its sale constitutes a regulatory taking and it also strips the properties of their core market utility
and destroys their commercial value. An ‘inverse condemnation’, if you will.
I should also mention that Page County residents will suffer along with everyone else. Any of
them that have invested their retirement, or other, funds in a short-term rental will have a property that
is no longer commercially viable. It may force sales at less than value. It may make borrowing for
repairs of the short-term rental impossible if the value drops.
My clients are not likely to just walk away and let the property go to foreclosure, but I don’t
know about the financial pressures of other owners if they find the commercial value can’t support the
debt. If the market value goes down every other county property owner that has to get an appraisal for a
loan will be negatively affected by discount sales. This is a real problem as anyone that lives in an area
where a house has been sold in foreclosure can tell you. They cannot sell for what their house is worth
because the comparable sales are low. Maybe they can’t even sell enough to pay off their current debt.
Another issue is how to address properties that are currently in design, or under construction.
For instance, the Bontempos purchased four adjoining lots that were purchased with the intention of
developing three 555-square-foot cabins. These are small cabins, almost a “tiny-home”. These cabins
are being designed and marketed specifically as couples' getaway retreats, with an intended
occupancy of two guests per cabin. The project was planned in reliance on the zoning regulations that
permitted short-term rentals at the time the property was acquired.
As you can see there are a lot of concerns that need to be fully explored prior to enacting the
amendments. The other proposed restrictions in the draft are pretty strict, and the current owners may
have additional concerns with the burden of compliance not raised herein. But the primary threat to
everyone’s financial well being is subjecting existing short-term rentals to restrictions that damage the
value or even prevent them from following through with their plans (like the Bontempos).

Clifton Thomas, Chair
July 30, 2026
Page 3
Thanks for considering these issues. Page County is not alone in seeking to address short-term
rentals but this can be a win-win if everyone’s concerns are addressed before passing the amendments.
Very truly yours,

Lair D. Haugh
LDH:clt
cc:

Jeremy Baldwin, District 1 – [email protected]
Allen Louderback, District 2 – [email protected]
Ryan Cubbage, District 3 – [email protected]
Susan Kile, District 4 – [email protected]
Jeff Vaughan, District 5 – [email protected]

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Anne Parnell
Tracy Clatterbuck; Amity Moler; Bucky Thomas; Jeremy Baldwin; Allen Louderback; Ryan Cubbage; Susan Kile;
Jeff Vaughan; Nina Fox
[email protected]
Opposition to Proposed Two-Year Prior-Ownership Requirement for Short-Term Rental Licensing
Monday, August 3, 2026 7:46:10 PM

[NOTICE: DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is
safe. No email should ever ask you for your username or password.]
New sender. Do you want to Trust or Silence them?
Trust

Silence

Dear Chairman Thomas and Members of the Board of Supervisors,
My name is Anne Parnell, and my family and I recently purchased a cabin in Shenandoah that we
operate as a short-term rental as well as place for family getaways. I'm writing to respectfully oppose
the proposed requirement that a new owner hold title to a property for two years before becoming
eligible to apply for a short-term rental (STR) license.
For years, my family made the drive down from Northern Virginia to spend time in the Shenandoah
Valley. Those trips are why we fell in love with this area, and why we ultimately decided to buy here
ourselves. Our goal was never to flip a property or extract value from the county — it was to give
other families the same experience that kept bringing us back, while investing in a home here, hiring
local contractors, and becoming part of the community. Without the ability to operate it
immediately as an STR however, we would not have been able to buy this property.
I want to be clear that I don't think the county is wrong to want stronger STR regulations. I've
followed the subcommittee's work and I understand the concerns driving it: absentee corporate
investors buying up housing stock, properties operated without regard for neighbors, and a licensing
process that hasn't kept pace with how much the STR market has grown here. Those are legitimate
problems, and I support the Board taking them seriously. But I'd ask you to consider that a flat twoyear ownership requirement swings the pendulum too far in the other direction, and ends up
penalizing exactly the kind of owner the county should want to attract.
A few reasons why:
It regulates the wrong variable. A waiting period tied to ownership tenure says nothing about
whether an owner will operate responsibly. It doesn't screen for absentee management,
nuisance complaints, safety compliance, or neighborhood impact — the actual harms the
county is trying to prevent. It simply excludes new owners across the board, regardless of
their conduct.

It falls hardest on individual, owner-invested families — not the corporate operators it's

meant to target. A large investment group buying multiple properties can absorb a two-year
delay as a cost of doing business. A family that has just closed on a single home, taken out a
mortgage on the strength of projected rental income, and budgeted for that income to help
cover the payment does not have that cushion.

It penalizes exactly the investment the county should want. Since closing, we've hired local
contractors and companies to renovate, maintain, and clean our property and bought
supplies and materials from the Page Cooperative. The proposed 2-year ownership
requirement would mean an end to the work and purchases for local contractors and
companies that new STRs bring to Page County.

We’ve done all the things a responsible owner needs to do including secure short-term-rental
insurance and work through the county's business license, zoning, health department, and
VDOT review process. A blanket ownership waiting period doesn't distinguish between an
owner doing all of that and one who isn't — it simply says none of us can operate yet.

It risks disrupting owners who are already mid-process. Several new owners have already
begun the county's existing application steps under the current rules. A retroactive ownership
requirement could strand people who followed the process as it existed when they bought.

Tourism is a core piece of Page County's economy, and new STRs help by expanding not just
the number of properties that visitors have to choose from but the range of offerings as well.
The proposed rule would choke off the economic growth that comes from a thriving tourism
industry.
I'd respectfully ask the Board to consider alternatives that address the underlying concerns without a
blanket tenure requirement — for example: a special use permit or registration process with real
screening (safety inspection, local point-of-contact requirement, septic/occupancy verification),
clear and enforceable nuisance and complaint standards with meaningful penalties for violations,
and/or additional scrutiny specifically aimed at owners or entities holding multiple STR properties,
rather than one applied uniformly to every new owner regardless of how many properties they hold.
Thank you for the work the subcommittee has put into this, and for the opportunity to weigh in. I'd
welcome the chance to speak further or answer any questions, and I hope the Board will consider an
approach that holds STR owners accountable for how we operate rather than how long we've held
title.
Sincerely,
Anne Parnell
Thoughtfully Hosted, LLC — "Tuckaway Cabin"

571-289-4438
[email protected]

Rental Property: 103 Buzzard View Pl, Shenandoah, VA 22849

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Stephanie Richards
Tracy Clatterbuck; Amity Moler
Fwd: Deep Concerns Regarding STR Zoning Ordinances, Market Saturation, and the Future of Page County
Families
Sunday, August 2, 2026 1:06:02 PM

New sender. Do you want to Trust or Silence them?
Trust

Silence

Dear Ms. Clatterbuck and Ms. Moler,
I hope this message finds you well.
I am forwarding correspondence that I previously submitted to both the Chairman of the Board
of Supervisors and my district supervisor regarding a matter scheduled for consideration by
the Board. While I did not receive a response from either elected official, I also noted that my
correspondence was not included in the agenda materials prepared for tomorrow's meeting.
Upon reviewing the meeting packet, I observed that other correspondence submitted to
members of the Board, including letters and emails submitted during the same general time
frame as my own, was included for review. As a result, I am seeking clarification regarding
the process by which citizen correspondence is collected, reviewed, and incorporated into
Board materials. Specifically, I would appreciate understanding why my correspondence was
not included and whether there are additional steps I should take to ensure that future
communications are properly received and considered.
In addition to my own concerns, I am concerned about the broader implications for public
participation. If correspondence submitted by citizens is not consistently included or
acknowledged, there is a risk that community input may be inadvertently overlooked.
Transparency in this process is important to maintaining public confidence that all viewpoints
are being fairly received and considered, particularly on matters of significant community
interest.
As a citizen, I value the opportunity to participate in local government and to have my
comments considered alongside those of other community members. Therefore, I would be
grateful for any guidance you can provide regarding the appropriate point of contact, the
procedures for submitting correspondence intended for Board review, and any criteria used in
determining which communications are included in meeting materials.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.
Respectfully,
Stephanie Richards

---------- Forwarded message --------From: Stephanie Richards <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 9:00 AM
Subject: Deep Concerns Regarding STR Zoning Ordinances, Market Saturation, and the
Future of Page County Families
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Clifton “Bucky” Thomas, Chairman
Jeff Vaughan, District 5 Representative
Page County Board of Supervisors
County Government Center
103 South Court Street, Suite F
Luray, VA 22835
Chairman Thomas and Supervisor Vaughan,
I am writing to you today as a life-long resident of District 5 to express my serious concerns
regarding the future of housing and community stability in Page County. Specifically, I want
to address the recently failed motion by the Page County Planning Commission to advance
necessary updates and amendments to our Zoning Ordinances regarding short-term rentals
(STRs).
Recently, I watched a video online by an out-of-town real estate investor who was fearmongering community members. This individual claimed that implementing a proposed twoyear moratorium on new STRs, which would simply prevent new buyers from immediately
flipping residential properties into vacation rentals, would cause the entire economy of Page
County to collapse. Let us be entirely honest about what this policy would actually do: it
would serve as a vital emergency brake. If a moratorium prevents more STRs from flooding
our area, I believe that is exactly the outcome we desperately need.
I recently reviewed local STR listings in the town of Shenandoah alone and was completely
stunned by the volume. I've seen estimates of 140 STRs in Shenandoah alone, I
stopped counting after running 30 of them through the GIS. The market is so saturated that
local, single-family home buyers cannot find a place to live without forcing the county into a
corner where we must develop entirely new properties just to meet basic housing needs. This
crisis should have been anticipated and planned for long before now.
The consequences of this unregulated gold rush are already fracturing our civic infrastructure.
I sat through a recent Page County School Board meeting where the potential closing of
Shenandoah Elementary School was actively discussed. School attendance and facility
consolidation have been painful topics in our neighborhood for months. When reflecting on
how we got here, the answer is clear: we cannot expect young, working families to enroll their
children in our school division if they are completely priced out of the market by real estate
investors. For far too long, these investors have been told that navigating STR regulations in
Shenandoah and the rest of Page County is a total breeze.
Many local families like my own are looking at our children and recognizing a bleak reality.
My husband and I were able to purchase our home here in Shenandoah fifteen years ago on an
electrician’s salary, but under the current market conditions, that will be entirely impossible
for our kids. Investors will defensively argue that housing shortages are a national problem.
Even if they are partially correct, this moratorium gives our community a rare opportunity to
draw a line in the sand. Out-of-town investors are welcome to stay and operate their existing

STRs, but we should not make it easy for them to treat our community like a liquid asset when
they decide to jump ship. They have purchased our homes, and they must bear the economic
consequences of building their wealth off our landscape and natural resources.
I encourage every single member of the Board to look in the mirror and ask themselves what
their legacy will be. Will you be remembered as leaders who stood up and protected the best
interests of your local community?
Please let me know if the Board of Supervisors will officially be taking up the short-term
rental ordinance amendments or voting on a potential moratorium at a future meeting. Thank
you for your time, and I look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Richards
213 N. 5th Street
Shenandoah, VA 22849

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Joshua Hahn
Tracy Clatterbuck
FW: Proposed STR Ordinance changes
Monday, August 3, 2026 9:40:38 AM

This email is from a trusted sender and .

Tracy,
I think this may have been sent to Tracey Turner rather than you.
Thanks,

Josh Hahn
Page County Planning Director
103 S. Court St. Suite B.
Luray, VA 22835                                       
540-843-3456

<!--[if !vml]--> <!--[endif]-->

The e-mail and any attachments with it are privileged and confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual(s)
to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error or are not the addressee, please immediately delete it
and notify the sender.

From: Christine Sennott <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2026 5:12 PM
To: Jeremy Baldwin <[email protected]>; Allen Louderback
<[email protected]>; Ryan Cubbage <[email protected]>;
Susan Kile <[email protected]>; Jeff Vaughan <[email protected]>;
Bucky Thomas <[email protected]>
Cc: Joshua Hahn <[email protected]>; Tracey Turner
<[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed STR Ordinance changes

[NOTICE: DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is
safe. No email should ever ask you for your username or password.]
Dear Members of the Page County Board of Supervisors,
Thank you for the time and effort you have invested in reviewing and updating the County's

proposed Short-Term Rental Ordinance. I recognize this is a difficult issue requiring you to
balance housing needs, neighborhood concerns, tourism, private property rights, and the
economic health of our community. I sincerely appreciate your willingness to take on that
responsibility.
I am writing to respectfully share my perspective as a Page County resident, Realtor,
builder, business owner, Str owner, and member of the Board of Directors for Habitat for
Humanity of Page County.
Housing is an issue I care deeply about. Long before joining the Board of Habitat for
Humanity, I spent years fundraising and supporting New Hope Housing, an organization
dedicated to helping individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Today, I continue
that commitment through my work with Habitat for Humanity, where I support efforts to
create affordable homeownership opportunities here in Page County.
These experiences, combined with my career in real estate, have given me the opportunity
to see housing challenges from multiple perspectives. I understand the importance of
expanding housing opportunities for local families, and I fully support thoughtful, effective
efforts to address those challenges. At the same time, as a business owner and str owner, I
also understand the significant role tourism plays in supporting local jobs, small businesses,
and our local economy.
I want to be clear from the outset: I am not writing to argue against regulating short-term
rentals. I believe thoughtful, reasonable regulation is appropriate and necessary.
Responsible operators benefit from clear standards just as much as our neighbors do. My
concern is not whether the County should regulate short-term rentals—it is whether the
proposed regulations are the most effective tools to accomplish the County's goals.
Those goals, as I understand them, are to slow the growth of short-term rentals, improve
housing opportunities for local residents, and protect the quality of life within our
communities. Those are goals I support. My concern is whether several of the proposed
provisions will actually accomplish those objectives or whether they may create unintended
consequences that outweigh their intended benefits.
The Two-Year Ownership Requirement
Of all the proposed changes, one provision stands out above the rest: the requirement that
a property owner must own a home for two years before it can qualify as a short-term
rental.

If I understand the reasoning behind this proposal correclty. If the objective is simply to
slow the growth of short-term rentals, a two-year ownership requirement will likely
accomplish that by creating a higher barrier to entry.

However, if the broader objective is to improve housing affordability and increase housing
opportunities for local residents, I respectfully ask whether this requirement actually
advances that goal.
I keep coming back to one simple question:
How does requiring someone to own a property for two years before operating a

short-term rental create one additional home for a local family?
The requirement does not build new housing. It does not reduce construction costs. It does
not increase the supply of workforce housing. At the end of the day, the County has the
same number of homes it had before.
If someone purchases a cabin, river property, or second home intending to eventually
operate it as a short-term rental, preventing them from doing so for two years does not
automatically make that property available to a local family. In many cases, it simply delays
the owner's ability to operate a legal business while the property sits vacant, is used only
occasionally, or remains a second home until the waiting period expires. The housing
inventory has not changed—we have simply delayed one permitted use of the property.
In researching this issue, I reviewed studies evaluating the effects of short-term rental
regulations. One recent study published in the International Journal of Housing Markets and
Analysis examined Santa Monica's stringent short-term rental regulations. While the
regulations substantially reduced the number of short-term rentals, the study did not find a
statistically significant reduction in residential rents, suggesting that reducing STR activity
alone may not necessarily improve housing affordability. (Ref)
This proposal also affects far more than outside investors. It impacts local residents,
retirees, entrepreneurs, families relocating to Page County, and individuals who purchase
property with plans to eventually make Page County their permanent home while renting it
during the transition.
I am also concerned that this proposal may unintentionally shift the market in favor of
larger, well-capitalized investors.
A two-year ownership requirement increases the cost of entering the short-term rental
market because buyers must carry the expenses of ownership for an extended period
before they can generate income from that permitted use. Those with substantial financial
resources are generally better positioned to absorb those carrying costs. Local families,
retirees, first-time investors, and small business owners often are not.
If one of the County's goals is to encourage local ownership and responsible investment, I
respectfully question whether this proposal moves us in the opposite direction by creating a
higher barrier for local buyers while giving a relative advantage to those with greater access
to capital.
Ironically, the people most likely to be discouraged by a two-year waiting period may be the
very local residents the County hopes to encourage—those who want to purchase,
improve, and responsibly operate a property as part of building their future in Page County.
There is another consequence I believe deserves careful consideration: the potential
impact on existing property owners.
As a Realtor, I know that a property's value is influenced not only by its physical
characteristics, but also by the range of lawful uses available to future buyers. When a
permitted use is restricted, the pool of potential buyers becomes smaller. For properties
that have historically been purchased and marketed as short-term rentals—such as cabins,
riverfront homes, and mountain retreats—that reduction in demand could place downward

pressure on property values.
If reducing the investment value of these properties is an intended outcome of the proposed
ordinance, I believe that should be openly acknowledged and carefully weighed alongside
the anticipated benefits. If it is not an intended outcome, then it represents another
significant consequence that deserves thoughtful consideration.
Page County will continue to be a destination for visitors seeking Shenandoah National
Park, the Shenandoah River, outdoor recreation, wineries, and the unique experiences our
community offers. If visitor demand remains strong while the supply of short-term rentals is
intentionally restricted, the likely result is not that demand disappears—it is that fewer local
property owners are able to participate in meeting that demand. Existing operators may
benefit from reduced competition, while aspiring local owners face higher barriers to entry
and existing property owners may see the marketability of their properties reduced.
As a Realtor, I have also seen firsthand how private investment transforms neglected
properties. Those renovations create work for local contractors, electricians, plumbers,
landscapers, cleaners, suppliers, and countless other small businesses. Tourism supports
our restaurants, breweries, wineries, retail stores, outfitters, grocery stores, gas stations,
and many local service providers. Short-term rentals are only one part of a much larger
economic ecosystem that benefits many Page County residents.

One Short-Term Rental Per Lot
I also respectfully ask the Board to reconsider the proposed limitation of one short-term
rental per lot.
As with the ownership requirement, I respectfully ask what specific problem this provision is
intended to solve that is not already addressed through permitting, occupancy limits,
parking requirements, septic capacity, local contacts, and enforcement.
I am also concerned this provision could unintentionally encourage subdivision of larger
parcels. Rather than preserving the rural character of Page County, limiting properties to
one short-term rental per lot may incentivize landowners to create additional lots so that
multiple rental units can still be developed. More lots can mean more driveways, more
infrastructure, and additional development—an outcome I do not believe is the County's
intention.
Likewise, many rural properties already contain guest cottages, converted barns, garage
apartments, or accessory dwellings. Preventing those existing structures from being used
responsibly simply because they are located on the same parcel may reduce tourism
opportunities and property investment without meaningfully increasing housing availability.
Existing Regulations
I also respectfully ask the Board to consider whether some of the concerns prompting these
proposed changes could be addressed through more consistent enforcement of the
County's existing regulations.
The current ordinance already requires short-term rental operators to obtain a business
permit and comply with established standards. If there are operators who are not complying

with those requirements, I believe it is important to ask whether additional regulations are
the most effective solution, or whether stronger enforcement of the regulations already in
place would address many of the same concerns.
Responsible operators who obtain permits, comply with County requirements, pay taxes,
and respond to issues should not be placed at a competitive disadvantage because others
choose not to follow the rules. Effective enforcement helps ensure a level playing field while
addressing the operators who create the very problems these regulations are intended to
solve.

A Better Approach
One theme I continue to see throughout the proposed ordinance is that many of the
regulations focus on characteristics of the property or the owner rather than the actual
impacts the property has on the community.
I appreciate that the proposed ordinance already includes thoughtful provisions addressing
many of the concerns most often raised by residents, including permitting, occupancy limits,
parking requirements, septic capacity, local contacts, inspections, and enforcement. Those
regulations directly address the behaviors that can negatively affect neighboring properties
and communities.
Because those concerns are already being addressed, I respectfully ask what additional
objectives are achieved by the two-year ownership requirement and the one-short-termrental-per-lot limitation, and what evidence demonstrates that these additional restrictions
are necessary.
In researching this issue, I have found studies evaluating permit requirements, registration
systems, occupancy limits, density limits, and principal residence requirements. I have not
found evidence demonstrating that a two-year ownership requirement meaningfully
improves housing affordability or that limiting properties to one short-term rental per lot
increases housing opportunities in rural tourism communities like Page County. If such
evidence exists, I would sincerely appreciate the opportunity to review it before these
provisions are adopted.
Rather than adopting significant changes immediately, I respectfully encourage the Board
to consider creating a temporary stakeholder working group before finalizing the ordinance.
Bringing together short-term rental owners, neighboring property owners, tourism
representatives, local business owners, planning staff, public safety officials, housing
advocates, and members of the community would allow the County to identify the specific
problems it is trying to solve, review available data, evaluate alternative approaches, and
develop practical, evidence-based recommendations tailored specifically to Page County.
I do not believe we must choose between housing and tourism. I believe we can strengthen
both.
Responsible operators want irresponsible operators held accountable just as much as our
neighbors do. Those of us who operate responsibly are not asking for the absence of
regulation—we are asking for the opportunity to help develop regulations that solve real
problems while minimizing unintended consequences.

I chose to invest in Page County because I believe in this community. I chose to build a
business here because I believe in its future. I chose to serve on the Board of Habitat for
Humanity because I want to be part of the solution to our housing challenges.
My hope is that whatever regulations are ultimately adopted are based on evidence,
measurable outcomes, transparency, and collaboration with the people who will live with
the results.

Questions for Consideration
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.    <!--[endif]-->What specifically is the problem you are trying
to address with these regulations?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.    <!--[endif]-->What data demonstrates that short-term rentals
are a primary driver of Page County's housing affordability challenges?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.    <!--[endif]-->What evidence supports the conclusion that

requiring two years of ownership before operating a short-term rental will increase
the supply of affordable housing?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->4.    <!--[endif]-->Have other Virginia localities adopted a similar
two-year ownership requirement, and if so, what measurable housing outcomes
have they experienced?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->5.    <!--[endif]-->How many homes in Page County have been

purchased specifically to operate as short-term rentals over the past five years, and
what percentage of the County's housing stock does that represent?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->6.    <!--[endif]-->Has the County evaluated the potential

economic impact these proposed regulations could have on tourism, local
businesses, contractors, cleaning companies, restaurants, retail shops, and other
businesses supported by visitor spending?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->7.    <!--[endif]-->Since the proposed ordinance already includes
regulations addressing permitting, occupancy limits, parking, septic capacity, local
contacts, and enforcement, what additional objective is the two-year ownership
requirement intended to achieve, and what evidence demonstrates that it is
necessary to accomplish that objective?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->8.    <!--[endif]-->If the County's goal is to improve housing

affordability, what additional housing initiatives are being considered alongside
these regulations to directly increase the supply of homes for local residents?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->9.    <!--[endif]-->If the Board believes the two-year ownership

requirement will improve housing affordability, how will the County measure whether
the policy is successful? What benchmarks or metrics will be used to determine
whether it is achieving its intended purpose?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->10. <!--[endif]-->If the County determines in the future that the

two-year ownership requirement has not measurably increased housing availability
or affordability, is there a process or timeline for reviewing, modifying, or repealing

that provision based on its results?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->11. <!--[endif]-->Has the County evaluated whether this policy
disproportionately disadvantages local buyers while favoring investors who can
afford to hold property without income?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->12. <!--[endif]-->Has the County evaluated whether more

consistent enforcement of the current short-term rental ordinance could address
many of the concerns identified without the need for additional restrictions?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->13. <!--[endif]-->How many complaints have been received

regarding permitted short-term rentals versus unpermitted or non-compliant rentals?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->14. <!--[endif]-->What percentage of permitted short-term
rentals have been found to be in violation of the current ordinances?
<!--[if !supportLists]-->15. <!--[endif]-->If the existing regulations have not been

consistently enforced, how can the County determine that additional regulations will
produce different results?

I believe these are important questions because good public policy should be guided by
facts, measurable outcomes, and collaboration with the people who will be affected by it.
Thank you again for your service to Page County and for taking the time to consider my
comments. I would welcome the opportunity to participate in any future stakeholder
discussions as the County continues evaluating these proposed regulations.
Thank you for your hard work and your consideration to my comments,
Christine Sennott
Page County Resident
Realtor
Business Owner
Short-Term Rental Owner
Board Member, Habitat for Humanity of Page County

(Ref) Chaves-Fonseca, C. (2024). Short-term rentals and residential rents: Evidence from a
regulation in Santa Monica. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 18(5),
1169–1203. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHMA-01-2024-0001

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Weedon Investments
Ryan Cubbage
Jeremy Baldwin; Allen Louderback; Susan Kile; Jeff Vaughan; Amity Moler; Tracy Clatterbuck; Bucky Thomas
Opposition to Proposed STR Restrictions Without an Economic Impact Study
Friday, July 31, 2026 9:05:41 AM

New sender. Do you want to Trust or Silence them?
Trust

Silence

Dear Mr. Cubbage and Members of the Board of Supervisors,
I respectfully oppose the adoption of the proposed short-term rental restrictions until
Page County completes and publishes a comprehensive economic impact study.
I am the owner of two short-term rentals located at 317 Mills Lane and 231 Cross
Mountain Road. Before adopting sweeping regulations that could significantly affect
one of the County's largest tourism industries and an important source of income for
both the County and its residents, I believe the most prudent course of action is to
understand the full economic consequences.
During the County's previous discussions regarding the Transient Occupancy Tax, I
analyzed active STR permits and found that approximately 46% were owned by
Page County residents and 81% were owned by Virginia residents. I also estimated
that approximately 60% of STR revenue is reinvested into the local economy
through cleaners, contractors, property managers, restaurants, retailers, and other
local businesses, while approximately 20% returns to the municipality through taxes,
fees, and related revenue.
These regulations will affect far more than outside investors. They have the potential
to impact local families, small businesses, tourism, property values, employment, and
County revenue.
If the objective is to improve housing affordability, I encourage the Board to evaluate
both sides of the equation. If regulations reduce tourism spending and investment,
what analysis has been conducted to determine whether local wages and
employment will be maintained? If household incomes decline as a result of reduced
economic activity, residents' purchasing power may also decline, offsetting any
potential benefit from lower property values.
I respectfully ask the Board to pause adoption of these regulations until an economic
impact study has been completed and shared with the public. Decisions of this
magnitude should be supported by Page County-specific data demonstrating both the
expected benefits and the potential economic costs.
Respectfully,
Steve Weedon
317 Mills Lane
231 Cross Mountain Road

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Rob Kane
Amity Moler; Tracy Clatterbuck; Joshua Hahn
Follow-Up – Public Comment on Proposed STR Ordinance
Tuesday, September 1, 2026 4:48:24 PM

[NOTICE: DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is
safe. No email should ever ask you for your username or password.]
New sender. Do you want to Trust or Silence them?
Trust

Silence

Amity, Tracy, and Josh,
Good afternoon. I recently submitted the attached public comment to the Board of Supervisors
regarding the proposed amendments to Page County’s short-term rental ordinance. I wanted to
follow up directly with each of you as well, given your respective roles in the County’s
administration, zoning, and planning processes.
My comments focus on three specific areas: transition protection for properties already
permitted and under active construction but not yet able to obtain final STR approval;
clarification of the proposed occupancy standard as it relates to Health Department-approved
capacity and lawful sleeping areas; and a performance-based approach to emergency access
for existing rural roads and recorded historical easements.
I currently have a residential project under active construction in Page County that was
permitted and substantially committed under the existing regulatory framework, so I have a
direct interest in ensuring the final ordinance addresses projects that are already underway but
could not reasonably have completed the STR approval process before construction was
complete.
I support the County’s efforts to establish reasonable STR standards and believe the
recommendations in my letter would preserve the County’s health, safety, and land-use
objectives while addressing several potential unintended consequences of the current draft.
I would appreciate your consideration of the attached comments as the proposed amendments
continue through the review process. If any of these issues are already being addressed in a
subsequent draft, or if I have misunderstood how the proposed provisions would apply, I
would also appreciate any clarification you can provide.
Thank you for your time and consideration!
Best,
Rob K.

---------- Forwarded message --------From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 4:44 PM
Subject: Online Form Submittal: STR Public Comment Form
To: <[email protected]>

STR Public Comment Form
Public Comment Form: Short-Term Tourist Rental Regulation Amendments
Please note:
Comments received after 1 p.m. on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 may not appear in
the agenda packet published in advance of the September 21, 2026 public hearing.

Name

Robert Kane

Address

2205 Dry Run Road

City

Luray

State

Virginia

Zip Code

22835

Phone Number

571-308-9121

Email Address

[email protected]

Please provide your
comments or
statements to the
Board.

To: Page County Board of Supervisors
Re: Public Comment – Proposed Short-Term Rental Ordinance
Amendments
Members of the Board:
I am writing regarding the proposed amendments to Page
County’s short-term rental regulations. I support reasonable
regulations that promote safe and professionally operated shortterm rentals, protect neighboring property owners, and establish
clear and predictable standards for both applicants and County
staff.
I respectfully ask the Board to consider three targeted revisions
before final adoption: (1) transition protection for projects already
permitted and under active construction; (2) an occupancy
standard based upon approved wastewater capacity and lawful
sleeping capacity rather than an inflexible bedroom multiplier;

and (3) a performance-based emergency-access standard that
recognizes the realities of rural roads and historical easements
throughout Page County.
1. Transition Protection for Permitted Projects Already Under
Construction
I encourage the County to establish clear transition protection for
properties that received valid building and development
approvals and commenced substantial construction before the
effective date of the new ordinance, but could not reasonably
obtain final STR approval because construction of the dwelling
was incomplete or ongoing.
My property illustrates this issue. I obtained the applicable
County approvals, designed and received approval for the septic
system, established access and parking, planned the property's
improvements and amenities, committed substantial capital, and
commenced construction under Page County's existing
regulatory framework. The project remains under active
construction. Because the dwelling is not yet complete, however,
I have not been in a position to obtain final STR approval.
This creates an unintended gap: a property may be legally
permitted, substantially committed, and actively under
construction before the rules change, yet receive less transition
protection than an already-operating STR simply because
construction had not progressed far enough to obtain final STR
approval.
I am not requesting a project-specific exemption. I recommend
an objective transition rule applicable to all similarly situated
property owners: a property for which a valid residential building
permit was issued and substantial construction commenced
before the ordinance's effective date should remain eligible to
apply for and obtain STR approval under the zoning and landuse standards in effect immediately before that date, provided
the property otherwise satisfies applicable health, septic,
building, fire, and life-safety requirements.
This would protect reasonable reliance upon previously issued
County approvals without exempting projects from legitimate
health or public-safety requirements.
2. Occupancy Based Upon Approved Capacity and Lawful
Sleeping Accommodations
I also encourage the Board to reconsider and clarify the
proposed limitation of two occupants per bedroom.

The ordinance should clearly establish the relationship among
Virginia Department of Health-approved onsite sewage capacity,
approved bedrooms, other lawful sleeping areas within a
dwelling, and maximum STR occupancy.
A property may have a Health Department-approved septic
system designed and approved to serve a greater number of
occupants than would be permitted under a strict two-person-perbedroom calculation. Likewise, residential designs may
intentionally incorporate lawful sleeping areas that are not
conventionally designated as bedrooms, such as purposefully
designed and constructed lofts and similar spaces that comply
with applicable building and life-safety requirements.
These spaces are not necessarily attempts to increase
occupancy beyond what a property can safely accommodate.
They are often intentional architectural features that contribute to
the character and appeal of a home. Lofts, A-frame designs,
cabins, and other distinctive vacation accommodations help
attract visitors seeking unique lodging experiences in Page
County. Those visitors, in turn, support the local economy
through spending at restaurants, shops, attractions, outfitters,
wineries, breweries, and other local businesses.
Occupancy regulations should therefore focus on whether a
property can safely and lawfully accommodate its guests rather
than automatically excluding lawful sleeping areas simply
because they are not labeled as conventional bedrooms.
I respectfully recommend that maximum STR occupancy instead
be limited to the lesser of:
(1) the maximum occupancy supported by the property's Virginia
Department of Health-approved onsite sewage system; or
(2) the lawful sleeping capacity of the dwelling under applicable
building, fire, and life-safety requirements.
This approach would continue to prevent overcrowding while
tying occupancy to objective health and safety standards.
If the County elects to retain a two-person-per-bedroom
standard, I respectfully request that the ordinance at minimum
expressly clarify how Health Department-approved occupancy
exceeding that calculation and other lawful, purpose-built
sleeping areas are treated when determining maximum STR
occupancy.
3. Emergency Access Based Upon Actual Serviceability

Finally, I respectfully recommend reconsideration of an inflexible
20-foot minimum road-width requirement for emergency access.
Page County is a rural community. Many properties throughout
the County are served by private roads, private lanes, and
recorded historical easements approximately 15 feet wide. Many
of these roads and easements have existed for decades and
have, for decades, safely and successfully provided serviceable
access for fire apparatus, EMS, law enforcement, construction
equipment, utility vehicles, delivery vehicles, and other large
equipment.
That history should matter. A longstanding rural road or historical
easement that has safely provided access for emergency and
other large vehicles for decades should not suddenly be deemed
inadequate solely because it does not satisfy a new 20-foot
dimensional requirement.
The legitimate public-safety objective is ensuring that emergency
personnel can safely and reliably reach the property. Width is
relevant, but width alone does not determine whether access is
adequate. A serviceable 15-foot private road with an appropriate
surface, reasonable grade, adequate vertical clearance, suitable
passing opportunities, and sufficient turnaround space may
provide better emergency access than a nominally 20-foot road
with poor surface conditions, excessive grade, inadequate
clearance, or insufficient turnaround capability.
I therefore recommend that the ordinance establish a
performance-based requirement that private access be
"serviceable for emergency vehicles."
Where an existing private road, lane, or recorded historical
easement is less than 20 feet wide, the Director of Emergency
Services, Fire Marshal, or another appropriate County publicsafety official should have express authority to evaluate and
approve the access based upon actual conditions, including
usable width, surface, grade, vertical clearance, turnouts or
passing areas, turnaround capability, historical serviceability, and
the demonstrated ability of emergency apparatus to safely reach
and depart from the dwelling.
Under this approach, 20 feet could remain a preferred design
standard for newly constructed access without becoming an
automatic prohibition against existing rural roads and recorded
historical easements that can demonstrably and safely
accommodate emergency vehicles.
The operative question should be whether the access is
serviceable for emergency vehicles—not whether every rural

road or historical easement in Page County satisfies an arbitrary
dimensional threshold.
Requested Action
I respectfully request that the Board direct staff to consider
incorporating the following principles into the ordinance before
final adoption:
1. Provide objective transition protection for properties with valid
building permits that commenced substantial construction before
the ordinance's effective date but could not reasonably obtain
final STR approval because construction of the dwelling was
incomplete or ongoing.
2. Determine maximum STR occupancy according to approved
wastewater capacity and lawful sleeping capacity—including
lawful, purpose-built sleeping areas—subject to applicable
health, building, fire, and life-safety requirements, rather than
relying exclusively upon an inflexible two-person-per-bedroom
calculation.
3. Require private access to be serviceable for emergency
vehicles and authorize the appropriate County public-safety
official to approve existing roads, lanes, and recorded historical
easements narrower than 20 feet when their actual conditions
and demonstrated serviceability provide safe and adequate
emergency access.
These revisions would not weaken reasonable STR regulation or
public-safety protections. They would make the ordinance more
objective, predictable, and appropriately tailored to the realities of
development and rural property ownership in Page County, while
continuing to require every STR to satisfy appropriate health,
building, fire, life-safety, wastewater, and emergency-access
standards before operating.
Thank you for considering these comments and for the
opportunity to participate in the public process.
Respectfully,
Rob K.

AT A GLANCE

Tourism Council Recommendations — Proposed Short-Term Tourist Rental Ordinance Amendments
Bottom line: We recommend the Board not adopt the August 4, 2026 draft as written. The three concerns cited — loss
of community, market saturation, and STR-driven housing impact — are not supported by the County's own data, and
several provisions raise open legal questions (Section III) that the County should get answered in writing before voting,
given what an unresolved conflict could cost the County if challenged.

Recommended Board Action
●
●
●
●
●
●

Reject the August 4 draft. Return it for substantial revision rather than adopt with amendments from the floor.
Require a Special Use Permit for STRs only within the County's designated Growth Tiers, in place of the
countywide by-right/SUP structure in the current draft.
Direct staff to monitor STR industry trends (supply, occupancy, growth rate, sales conversion) and maintain
ongoing engagement with affected subdivisions/HOAs; revisit zoning only if that data shows an actual,
measurable problem.
Draft a revised noise ordinance that addresses the specific nuisance complaint directly, rather than restricting
STRs broadly by bedroom count, access, or district.
Dedicate a portion of unrestricted Transient Occupancy Tax revenue to a workforce-housing incentive program.
Of the County's FY2026 (unaudited) TOT collections of $4.5M, $1.35M is restricted, leaving $3.15M unrestricted
for County needs and incentives.
Send any revised ordinance back through the Planning Commission for a clear recommendation — the current
draft reached the Board with neither an approval nor a denial from the Commission.

The Data at a Glance
Metric

Figure

Source

Active STR listings countywide (Feb.
2026)

741

AirDNA / County Housing Plan

Average occupancy, 2025

~50% (+1% YoY)

AirDNA

STR listing growth, 2026 YTD

+3.9% (down from 20.5% in 2022)

AirDNA

County home sales converted to new
STR use, 2020–2025

57 of 777 (7.3%)

Bright MLS analysis

Page County visitor spending, 2025

$109.6M (+4.5% YoY)

Virginia Tourism Corp.

Tourism jobs, 2025 (vs. 983 in 2019)

1,055 (+8% vs. 2019)

Virginia Tourism Corp.

State & local tax revenue from visitors,
2025

$9.4M ($6.4M local)

Virginia Tourism Corp.

Open Legal Questions We'd Ask Counsel First (see full report, Section III)
●
●
●
●
●

Does the owner-occupied definition's continuous-presence requirement narrow the protection Va. Code § 15.2983(D) gives an owner's legally occupied primary residence?
Do the open-ended SUP conditions and a property-specific violation schedule fit within the uniform civilpenalty-schedule requirement in § 15.2-2209?
Does the C-1 single-family amendment reduce allowed dwelling-unit density, and if so, was the additional
notice required by § 15.2-2204(B) provided?
Do the bedroom-count and shared-lane thresholds rest on a documented impact, as § 15.2-2284 calls for, or
are they undocumented proxies that would be hard to defend if challenged?
§ 125-30.21(M)(4) lets the reviewing authority judge private-lane adequacy with no listed criteria — could a
permit denied on that basis alone be challenged as arbitrary?

MEMORANDUM
TO: Page County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Page County Tourism Council – Short Term Rental (STR) Subcommittee
DATE: September 18, 2026
RE: Comprehensive Review of Proposed Short-Term Tourist Rental Ordinance Amendments (STR Draft
8-4-26, Version 3) — Public Hearing September 21, 2026

I. Purpose and Recommendation
This report responds to the draft amendments to Page County's short-term tourist rental (STR)
provisions scheduled for a Board of Supervisors public hearing on September 21, 2026, at 7:00 p.m.,
Luray High School. The Tourism Council is a citizen body, not a panel of attorneys, and nothing in this
report is legal advice or a legal opinion. What follows is the market and housing data behind the draft,
and a set of specific, good-faith questions about how particular provisions square with the Code of
Virginia, state regulations, and the County's own Code — questions we believe the Board should have
clear, written answers to from the County Attorney before voting, given what an unresolved conflict or
an ambiguous, inconsistently enforced standard could cost the County in a challenge.
Our recommendation: The data does not show a market in crisis, and the draft does not need to be
adopted as written to move this conversation forward productively. We ask the Board to require a
Special Use Permit for STRs only within the County's designated Growth Tiers; direct staff to monitor
market trends and maintain community engagement rather than legislate now; develop a revised noise
ordinance targeted at the actual nuisance complaint; and dedicate a portion of unrestricted Transient
Occupancy Tax revenue to a workforce-housing incentive program. This is a constructive, lower-risk path
that responds to the concerns raised without the open legal questions in Section III — and it puts the
County's tourism revenue to work on housing directly, rather than risking that revenue on an ordinance
that may not withstand a challenge. Section V sets out this recommendation in full.

II. Process and Market Context
A. Process
This draft reached the Board without an approval or denial recommendation from the Planning
Commission — the Commission could not reach agreement among itself on the package as written. That
is itself a reason for caution: if the body responsible for the first-level technical review could not agree
the changes are sound, the Board should be cautious about acting on a split record, particularly where
(as detailed in Section III) the draft has unresolved drafting and cross-reference problems (e.g., the
registry exemption in the introductory text points to subsection D while the registry itself is subsection
B; two separate proposed paragraphs on page 18 are each labeled subsection G).
The amendments also apply only within the unincorporated county. They do not affect STR policy in the
Towns of Luray, Stanley, or Shenandoah, where public water and sewer infrastructure — and therefore
the capacity for the higher-density workforce housing this ordinance is ultimately meant to protect — is
concentrated. Restricting STRs only where that infrastructure does not exist does not reach the housing
type most relevant to the stated workforce-housing goal.

B. Market Data: Is the STR Market “Saturated”?
As of February 2026, the County had 741 active STR listings countywide (AirDNA, cited in the County's
own 2026 Housing Plan) — well under 1,000, and roughly 7.5% of the County's approximately 9,907
households. Average occupancy across those listings was 50% for full-year 2025, essentially flat yearover-year (+1%), and the average daily rate ($283) was flat as well. A saturated market would show

occupancy and rates under pressure as too many listings chase too little demand; instead the data
shows steady, moderate performance.
The growth trend also shows a market stabilizing on its own, without new regulation. Listing growth
spiked in 2017–2018 off a very small base, then has decelerated every year since 2022:
Year

YoY Growth in Available STR Listings

2021

15.8%

2022

20.5%

2023

19.5%

2024

14.8%

2025

7.7%

2026 (YTD)

3.9%

This pattern is consistent with a market that boomed for identifiable, temporary reasons — COVID-era
travel patterns, historically low mortgage rates, the shift to remote work, and expanded rural broadband
— and has since found its natural level. A market growing at 3.9% year-to-date is not a market in need
of an emergency brake.

C. Housing Data: Are STRs “Responsible for” the Housing Shortage?
An independent analysis of Bright MLS data for county (non-town) residential sales from January 2020
through November 2025 found:
Metric

Count

% of County Sales

Unique county residential properties sold, Jan. 2020–Nov.
2025

777

100%

Properties already operating as STRs at time of sale
(existing STR stock)

97

12.5%

Properties newly converted to STR use after purchase
(new STR creation)

57

7.3%

Only 57 county homes — 7.3% of sales — were newly converted to STR use over five years, and only
12.5% of homes sold were operating as STRs at all at the time of sale. The County's own 2026 Housing
Plan independently arrives at the same figure, describing STR conversion as “a relatively small number
— only about 7% of the houses sold during this period.” The Housing Plan instead attributes the
affordability problem primarily to construction cost and supply constraints: new residential building
permits have declined for three straight years even as average permit value has risen sharply,
multifamily housing is just 5% of the County's stock with no new apartments in the pipeline, and “due to
the high cost of construction, new, non-short-term-rental housing development has been difficult for
the county to attract.” Home price growth in Page County (about 46% since 2021, per the Housing Plan)
is also broadly in line with national trends over the same period — this is a national affordability story
driven by construction costs, interest rates, and supply, not a Page County outlier caused by STRs.
On home values specifically: With STR conversion accounting for only 7.3% of county home sales over
five years, STRs are not a plausible primary driver of the County's roughly 46% home-value increase
since 2021. That figure tracks a national trend driven by construction costs, interest rates, and

constrained supply — the same forces documented in the County's own Housing Plan as the leading
causes of local unaffordability.

D. Tourism's Economic Contribution
The Virginia Tourism Corporation's most recent data (September 2025, reflecting 2025 performance)
shows tourism as a substantial and still-growing part of the County's economy:
Category

2025 Visitor Spending

Share

Lodging (incl. STRs and second-home spending)

$42.50M

38.8%

Recreation

$21.04M

19.2%

Retail

$19.25M

17.6%

Food & Beverage

$16.57M

15.1%

Transportation

$10.25M

9.4%

Total

$109.61M

100%

Statewide context: Page County visitor spending reached $109.6 million in 2025 (up 4.5% from 2024,
and about 22% above pre-pandemic 2019 levels). Tourism employment (1,055 jobs) has fully recovered
and now exceeds 2019 levels by 8% — faster than the Shenandoah Valley region as a whole and well
ahead of many Virginia localities that have not yet recovered. Visitors paid $9.4 million in state and local
taxes in 2025 ($3.1M state, $6.4M local), offsetting an estimated $951 in state and local taxes for the
average Page County household — Page ranks 25th of Virginia's 133 localities for tax offset per
household while ranking only 71st in population. Lodging and recreation spending together account for
nearly 64% of visitor spending in the County, both shares above the state average, underscoring how
central overnight lodging — including STRs — is to the local visitor economy. This is the revenue base
any STR restriction puts at risk, and it is the revenue base Section V proposes redirecting toward housing
directly, rather than constraining the industry that produces it.

E. Conflict with Adopted Economic Development Policy
At the June 17, 2024 Board of Supervisors meeting, the County's own Economic Development & Tourism
Director told the Board that agriculture and tourism are the two major economic drivers for Page
County, and that both are noted as growth areas in the Comprehensive Plan (adopted 2020) and the
Cardinal Study (adopted 2016). The Board itself reiterated this direction at a Board retreat in the
summer of 2022, confirming agriculture and tourism as the Office of Economic Development &
Tourism's mandated areas of focus.
As Section II.D documents, lodging — including short-term tourist rentals and second-home spending —
is the single largest category of visitor spending in the County, at 38.8% ($42.5 million) of the $109.6
million in 2025 visitor spending. We raise this only as a question, not a conclusion: has staff evaluated
whether the draft's restrictions on STR lodging are consistent with the County's own adopted economic
development guidance, which identifies tourism — including its lodging sector — as one of only two
designated growth drivers for the County? If the draft constrains growth in one of the two sectors the
County has formally adopted as its economic focus, we believe the Board should have that tension
addressed directly before voting, rather than treat the ordinance and the adopted economic strategy as
unrelated questions.

F. Projected Impact on Tourism Industry Growth

Section II.B shows a market that is stabilizing on its own: listing growth has decelerated every year since
2022 (from 20.5% to 3.9% year-to-date), while occupancy (~50%) and average daily rate ($283) have
both stayed essentially flat. We raise below several mechanisms by which the draft could affect that
trend — not as a projection or a proven local effect, but as questions the Board may want modeled
before adoption.
●

Constrained supply during an already-decelerating market. The countywide by-right/SUP
structure, the four-bedroom and shared-lane SUP triggers, and the added inspection, access and
screening requirements add cost and permitting time across a large share of existing and
prospective listings. Applied to a market that is already slowing on its own (Section II.B), added
friction could suppress net new lodging supply further, with no corresponding growth in other
lodging types (hotels, motels, inns) to absorb the visitor demand documented in Section II.D.

●

A capped revenue base. Lodging is the largest single category of visitor spending (38.8%, Section
II.D). Constraining lodging supply directly caps the visitor-nights the County can capture, with
likely second-order effects on the other spending categories — food & beverage, retail,
recreation — that depend on overnight visitors rather than day-trippers.

●

Competitive displacement to neighboring counties. Shenandoah, Warren, Rockingham and
Rappahannock counties compete for the same regional visitor base (Section II.A). If Page adopts
materially more restrictive STR rules than these neighboring markets, visitor demand — and the
associated spending and tax revenue — may simply relocate to a neighboring county rather than
disappear.

●

Tension with the report's own funding recommendation. Section V recommends dedicating a
share of unrestricted Transient Occupancy Tax revenue to a workforce-housing incentive
program. That revenue is generated by the same lodging sector the draft restricts. Constraining
STR growth while relying on its tax revenue to fund a new County program works in two
directions at once.

●

Investment predictability. SUP timelines of up to 12 months (Section IV) and undefined
discretionary criteria, such as private-lane adequacy (Section III.B, item M), create uncertainty
that could discourage the kind of larger, longer-horizon lodging investment — boutique inns,
agritourism lodging — the County might otherwise want to attract alongside STRs.

Question for the Board: Has the County modeled the effect of the draft's supply constraints and
permitting timelines on projected visitor spending and TOT growth over the next three to five years,
benchmarked against the growth trend documented in Section II.B and against neighboring counties'
STR policies?

III. Open Questions for the County Attorney
The Tourism Council includes no licensed attorneys, and nothing in this section is legal advice or a legal
conclusion — we are not in a position to say a provision is unlawful, and we don't. What we can do is
read the draft closely against the statutes and regulations it touches, and flag where the fit looks
uncertain enough that we believe the Board should get a written answer from the County Attorney
before voting, not after. An ordinance adopted with an unresolved statutory question, or an undefined
standard applied inconsistently from one applicant to the next, is the kind of thing that draws a legal
challenge — and if the County loses that challenge, or has to defend it, that is a real cost to taxpayers
that a few weeks of legal review now could avoid. Section III.A covers the definitional and district-level
changes (§§ 125-4, 125-9 through 125-12); Section III.B covers the operational standards on pages 15–
19 of the draft (§ 125-30.21(A)–(M)).

III.A — Definitional and District Changes (§§ 125-4, 125-9–125-12)
The table below lists specific provisions of the draft alongside the Virginia Code section, state regulation,
or Page County Code provision each one touches, and the question we think the Board should ask
counsel about each.
Provision

What the draft does

Statute/Regulation

Question for Counsel

Owner-occupied
definition (§ 125-4)

New definition requires the
owner to reside on the
property during the rental
period to qualify as “owneroccupied.”

Va. Code § 15.2983(D)

Va. Code § 15.2-983(D) appears to
protect an owner's legally
occupied primary residence from
new special-use requirements,
without expressly requiring the
owner's continuous presence
during the rental. Does the draft's
continuous-presence requirement
narrow that protection for
someone renting their whole
home during a temporary absence
— and if County staff apply this
narrower definition to a resident
the statute protects, could that
expose the County to a legal
challenge?

Bedroom threshold, byright vs. SUP (§§ 125-9,
125-10)

By-right status limited to ≤ 3
bedrooms in W-C and A-1; 4+
bedrooms requires an SUP.

Va. Code § 15.22284

Va. Code § 15.2-2284 calls for
zoning decisions to give
reasonable consideration to
existing uses, property suitability,
and the other listed factors
together. Bedroom count is a
proxy for capacity rather than a
measured impact such as noise,
traffic, septic load, or safe access
— does the County have a
documented basis tying this
specific threshold to an actual
impact, and if not, is that a
weaker record to defend if the
classification is challenged? The
Board may also want to ask staff
whether this threshold cuts
against the County's own
workforce-housing goals, since 1–
3 bedroom units are the size most
needed for that purpose.

Shared-driveway /
access trigger (§§ 1259(B), 125-10(B))

By-right access requires public- Va. Code § 15.2road frontage, or a private lane 2282
serving no more than two
additional dwellings; more
than two triggers an SUP.

This standard counts neighboring
dwellings rather than evaluating
the condition of the road itself
(width, grade, sight distance,
emergency access), and a parcel
with public frontage can still rely
on a shared lane in practice, so
the two sub-tests can overlap. If
an unrelated neighbor's later

Provision

What the draft does

Statute/Regulation

Question for Counsel
development changes an existing
STR's classification with no act by
the operator, does that create a
fair-notice problem, and could a
permit revoked on that basis
expose the County to an appeal or
a claim?

Registry &
advertisement-number
penalty (§ 125-30.21)

Requires annual registration
and a $500 penalty for a
registered listing missing its ID
number in an advertisement.

Va. Code § 15.2983(B); § 15.2-2209

Va. Code § 15.2-983(B) expressly
authorizes a $500 penalty for
offering an unregistered property.
Does that authority extend to a
registered listing that simply omits
its ID number in an
advertisement, or would that
instead fall under the ordinary
zoning-penalty framework in §
15.2-2209, which caps an initial
summons at $200 and requires a
uniform schedule? If the County
assesses the $500 penalty without
clear statutory authority, could
that create refund liability or an
equal-protection challenge from
an owner who is penalized more
heavily than § 15.2-2209 would
allow?

Open-ended SUP
conditions & duration
(§ 125-30.21(M))

Permits site-by-site conditions
on duration, setbacks,
screening, traffic, and a
violation schedule, without
stated criteria.

Va. Code § 15.22286(A)(3)–(4); §
15.2-2209

Va. Code § 15.2-2286(A)(3)–(4)
allows conditional zoning and
permit duration, but a minimum
three-year term appears to apply
to qualifying residential projects,
and § 15.2-2209 requires any local
penalty schedule to be uniform.
Does an SUP condition allowed to
be set case-by-case, with its own
violation and penalty schedule, fit
within that framework, or could
an inconsistent, permit-specific
fine schedule be challenged as
exceeding the County's authority
under § 15.2-2209?

Va. Code § 15.22204(B)

If this change reduces allowed
dwelling-unit density on C-1 lots,
Va. Code § 15.2-2204(B) requires
additional advertising and owner
notice beyond the standard
hearing notice. Has that density
analysis been done, and if it
shows a density reduction that
wasn't accompanied by the
additional notice, could that

Commercial (C-1) single- Replaces the existing crossfamily limit (§ 125-12)
reference to §§ 125-9E/12510E dimensional standards
with a flat one-single-familydwelling-per-lot rule.

Provision

What the draft does

Statute/Regulation

Question for Counsel
expose an adopted ordinance to a
notice-defect challenge? The
Board may want that question
answered, in writing, before this
provision moves forward with the
rest of the package.

Vested rights / existing
operations (§ 125-30.21
intro; Art. VII)

Exempts “approved
nonconforming” STRs from the
new supplemental standards
except registration, but does
not fully reconcile that
exemption with transferreview and inspection
requirements elsewhere in the
draft.

Va. Code § 15.22307

Va. Code § 15.2-2307 governs
vested rights and nonconforming
uses, though it does not
automatically protect every
existing operation from every new
requirement. Does the draft's
nonconforming-use exemption
clearly reconcile with the
ownership-transfer and inspection
provisions elsewhere in the draft?
If an existing operator, buyer, or
lender cannot determine an STR's
status from the ordinance's text
alone, could that uncertainty itself
become the basis for a dispute
with the County?

Why this matters: We want to be careful here: nothing below says a provision is illegal, and Virginia
gives localities real authority to regulate STRs by zoning. Our concern is that several of these questions
are still open, and an ordinance adopted while they're open is an ordinance the County may end up
defending — in time, in legal fees, and potentially in a judgment — rather than one built to withstand a
challenge from the start. Getting written answers before the vote costs little and meaningfully reduces
that exposure.

III.B — Operational Standards and Definitional Changes, § 125-30.21(A)–(M) (Draft pp. 15–19)
Pages 15 through 19 of the draft restate and expand the supplemental operating standards in § 12530.21. Worth noting up front: the introductory paragraph exempts approved nonconforming STRs from
these standards but says they must still comply with the registry requirement “in subsection D” — the
registry is actually subsection B, not D. The table below walks through each lettered subsection and the
question we'd ask about it.
§

What it requires

Authority

Question for Counsel

A

Limits STR use to a permitted dwelling only;
expressly excludes RVs, travel trailers, tents,
yurts, domes, and vacant land from the STR
category.

Fair-notice /
drafting

“Incidental” and the categorical
reference to specific structure types
(e.g., “domes”) are undefined —
could that language sweep in a codecompliant permanent dwelling based
on its shape rather than its actual use,
and if an owner challenged that
outcome, would the County have a
clear, defensible line to point to? Is
there a separate, confirmed lawful
path elsewhere in the Code for

§

What it requires

Authority

Question for Counsel
glamping or campground-style
accommodations?

B

Creates an annual STR registry under Va.
Va. Code § 15.2Code § 15.2-983; requires a registry ID
983(B)
number on every advertisement; imposes a
$500 civil penalty per violation and prohibits
continued operation until compliant.

§ 15.2-983(B) expressly authorizes a
$500 penalty for offering an
unregistered property. Does the
County have separate authority to
apply that same $500 figure to a
registered property's advertisement
that simply omits its ID number, or
should that instead go through the
uniform civil-penalty framework in §
15.2-2209 (capped at $200 for an
initial summons)? This is the same
question raised in Section III.A —
we'd suggest getting one written
answer that covers both.

C

Requires an approved Community
Development Review Application (CDRA)
and Page County business license before
operating; requires a new CDRA and
business license upon any transfer of
ownership.

Page County Code § 125-54(E)(4)
states that approved special uses run
with the land. Does requiring a brandnew CDRA and business license on
every ownership transfer — without
saying whether that review is
ministerial or fully discretionary — sit
well with that provision and with the
vested-rights protections in § 15.22307? If a compliant, unchanged
operation is denied continuation on a
technicality at the point of sale, could
that become a liability the County did
not intend to take on?

D

Requires a property management plan
Fair-notice /
(occupancy-limit monitoring,
proportionality
boundary/trespass controls, parking
management, landscaping/screening, a 24/7
local point of contact located within the
County or a 30-mile drive,
emergency/evacuation information, and
real-time burn-ban notice) and a seven-part
concept plan (location, setbacks,
landscaping, parking dimensions,
lighting/signs, recreational features).

Most of this restates existing
obligations in more detail. Does a
contact's distance from the county
line actually measure how quickly
they can respond, or would a
response-time standard serve the
same safety goal with less burden? Is
engineered-plan-level detail
necessary for a dwelling where no
physical change is proposed? And
what does “real-time” notice of a
burn ban actually require — a specific
delivery method, a time window, an
outage exception — and could an
owner be penalized under a standard
that hasn't been defined clearly
enough to comply with?

E

Layers a flat two-persons-per-bedroom
12VAC5-610-670;
occupancy ceiling (excluding the
Fair Housing
owner's/operator's own children age six and (familial status)

The Health Department's sewagepermit occupancy limit is already the
controlling capacity basis under state

Page County
Code § 12554(E)(4); Va.
Code § 15.2-2307

§

What it requires

Authority

under) on top of the Health Department's
sewage-permit-based occupancy
determination; states the County has no
authority to authorize occupancy above the
Health Department limit.

Question for Counsel
regulation. Why does the County
need its own separate, flat ceiling on
top of that, and can it recognize an
approved higher capacity where one
exists? Does the undefined age-six
cutoff and the “their children”
language treat a multigenerational or
blended family fairly, and has this
provision been reviewed for potential
familial-status implications before it's
adopted?
For context: VDH's own sewage
design-flow schedule (12VAC5-610670, Table 5.1) treats permanent
dwellings and short-term/transient
facilities as different categories. A
dwelling is designed for 75 gallons per
person per day (150 gpd per
bedroom, since the table requires
designing for two persons per
bedroom) — the same permanenthousehold figure the draft's new
occupancy ceiling borrows. Actual
short-term-use facilities are assigned
much lower, distinct flow rates: resort
camps with limited plumbing at 50
gpd per campsite, luxury camps with
flush toilets at 100 gpd per campsite.
The Board may want to ask why a
permanent-residential design
assumption, rather than an
independent short-term-use
standard, governs a zoning cap on a
use the County elsewhere regulates
as commercial.

F

Requires unobstructed emergency-vehicle
access: 20 ft. clear width, 13'6" vertical
clearance, load-bearing capacity, and a
turnaround for dead ends over 150 ft.,
citing Virginia Fire Prevention Code § 503,
with an alternative approved by the
Director of Emergency Services.

13VAC5-52-170;
13VAC5-52-20;
Va. Code § 27-97

Virginia's fire-code amendments
already address access alternatives
for existing buildings, so the County
likely has authority to set its own
standard here — the open question is
process: what published criteria,
application steps, and timeline apply
to the “alternative approved by the
Director of Emergency Services”
option? If a rural property cannot
feasibly meet the 20-foot/13'6"
standard and there is no clear,
appealable path to an alternative,
could a denial on this basis be
challenged as arbitrary?

§

What it requires

Authority

Question for Counsel

G
(parking)

Requires a minimum of two off-street
parking spaces per dwelling in designated
areas; prohibits blocking roads or rights-ofway; requires VDOT entrance review where
the entrance is on a state-maintained road.

Proportionality

Should a flat two-space minimum
apply the same way to a small hosted
rental as to a large group house, or
would tying the requirement to
approved occupancy fit better with
the general parking standards
elsewhere in the Code? Separately,
does an existing, previously approved
driveway entrance need to be rereviewed under this provision if
nothing about the use is changing?

G
(screening)
[duplicate
letter]

In A-1, W-C, and R districts, requires
evergreen double-row landscaping and/or a
six-foot solid fence when the dwelling, deck,
or connected structure is within 50 feet of a
side or rear property line.

Va. Code § 15.22282

A distance-based screening trigger
likely satisfies the uniform-treatment
requirement in § 15.2-2282, but does
it account for existing vegetation or
terrain that may already screen a
property just as effectively as new
plantings would? Would an
equivalency route for documented
existing screening reduce cost
without weakening the standard's
purpose? Separately, this subsection
reuses the letter “G” already assigned
to parking above — we'd flag that for
the County Attorney to correct, since
an ordinance with two different
“Section G” provisions is itself
something a challenge could point to.

H

Requires a Building Official life-safety
inspection upon new application or
ownership transfer: fire extinguisher (Type
2A:10B:C) in kitchen/cooking areas, smoke
detectors per the Uniform Statewide
Building Code, carbon monoxide detectors
where fuel-fired appliances exist, and a
minimum 4-A-rated extinguisher or other
approved on-site fire-suppression
equipment.

Va. Code § 27-97

This largely restates an existing
requirement; the transfer trigger
raises the same question as
subsection C above. Separately, is
“other approved on-site fireextinguishing equipment, such as dirt,
sand, water barrel, garden hose or
water truck” meant as a substitute for
the rated kitchen extinguisher, or only
as a supplement? An inspector and an
owner could reasonably read this two
different ways, which is worth
resolving before it's enforced.

I

Limits outdoor fires to one enclosed fire ring Vagueness /
per STR, made of durable nonflammable
stated purpose
material at least eight inches high.

Does this provision distinguish a
wood campfire from a manufactured
gas fire table, a grill, or an approved
outdoor fireplace — and is there a
stated safety basis for the specific
one-ring-per-property and eight-inch
figures? Without that distinction,
could a manufacturer-compliant gas
appliance be treated the same as an

§

What it requires

Authority

Question for Counsel
open wood fire, and would that hold
up if questioned?

J

Requires full cut-off, downward-directed
lighting, with exceptions for
driveway/internal-road lighting, lighting
required by the Uniform Statewide Building
Code, and motion-activated security lighting
(≤ 10 minutes).

Va. Code § 15.22307

The lighting standard itself is a
common zoning tool, and probably
not the issue. The question is
retroactive application: if this requires
physical changes to existing, lawfully
installed fixtures with no compliance
schedule, does that sit well with the
nonconforming-use protections in §
15.2-2307? Is there a transition
period planned for existing fixtures,
and does the driveway-lighting
exception risk swallowing the
adjoining-property protection it's
meant to work alongside?

K, L

K: noncompliance is a zoning violation. L:
Va. Code § 15.2nonconforming STRs are governed by Article 2307; § 15.2VII (Nonconforming Lots, Uses, Structures
2209
and Buildings), in addition to any
requirements stated in § 125-30.21.

These two subsections are where
most of the vested-rights questions
raised throughout this table
converge. Would it help — and
reduce the County's exposure — to
publish a written guide describing
exactly which existing operations
qualify as “approved nonconforming,”
how that status carries through a
sale, and which of the requirements
above apply to them going forward,
rather than deciding each case at the
point of enforcement?

M

For SUP-track STRs, authorizes site-by-site
Va. Code § 15.2conditions on: (1) SUP duration; (2)
2286(A)(3)–(4); §
fencing/landscaping/screening/setbacks/no- 15.2-2209
trespassing signage; (3) traffic impact and
mitigation; (4) private-lane-usage adequacy
as determined by the reviewing authority;
and (5) a violation and penalty schedule.

Does a per-permit violation and
penalty schedule set under item (5) fit
within the uniform civil-penalty
framework of § 15.2-2209, or could
an incompatible, SUP-specific fine
schedule be challenged? Item (4) —
private-lane adequacy “as
determined appropriate by the
reviewing authority,” with no listed
criteria — is, in our view, the single
broadest grant of unstructured
discretion anywhere in the draft. If a
permit were denied on that basis
alone, with no published standard to
point to, could that denial be
challenged as arbitrary, and is that a
risk the Board is comfortable taking
on? Published criteria for each of the
five factors, with written findings tied
to a documented, site-specific impact,
would go a long way toward closing
that question.

Why this matters: Subsections B, E, F, and M raise the questions we'd want answered first — they touch
specific statutory or regulatory language most directly. Subsections A, D, G (screening), I, and J read
more like drafting choices that could use tighter definitions than like statutory conflicts, but a vague
standard is still a standard an owner can challenge as applied. The duplicate “G” label and the intro's
reference to a nonexistent “subsection D” aren't just typos — an ordinance with an internal crossreference that doesn't resolve to anything is, on its own, something a challenge could point to, separate
from whatever the underlying standard says.

III.C — Workforce Housing Effects of Specific Provisions
The draft is framed partly as a response to housing pressure. The table below sets out, provision by
provision, why several of the specific mechanisms may not advance — and in some cases may work
against — that stated goal. As above, these are questions for the Board, not legal or economic
conclusions.
Provision

What the draft does

Effect on workforce housing Question for the Board

Bedroom threshold,
by-right vs. SUP (§§
125-9, 125-10)

Limits by-right status to ≤ 3
bedrooms in W-C and A-1; 4+
bedrooms requires an SUP.

1–3 bedroom units are the
size most needed for
workforce housing. A
threshold set at the STR
bedroom count, not the
unit's ultimate residential
use, does not by itself
convert a large home into
workforce housing — it may
simply move it into the SUP
queue.

Has staff modeled whether
this threshold pushes owners
toward selling to secondhome or investor buyers
rather than converting to
resident use?

No affordable-unit or
funding requirement
attached to the
restrictions

The draft adds registration,
inspection, SUP and access
requirements with no housing
set-aside, price restriction, or
funding mechanism attached.

A property that exits the STR
market may become a
resident home, an expensive
year-round sale, a second
home, or sit unused.
Restricting supply alone
does not guarantee a
workforce-housing
outcome.

What would the County
accept as evidence that a
restriction actually produced
affordable, occupied
workforce housing, rather
than fewer listings?

SUP, inspection,
screening and roadstandard compliance
costs (§ 125-30.21(C),
(D), (F), (H))

New CDRA/business-license
review on transfer, a life-safety
inspection, and a 20-ft/13'6"
emergency-access standard for
dead ends over 150 feet.

These costs fall heaviest on
small, individually owned
rentals rather than larger
operators, and are more
likely to push a small local
owner to sell to an outside
or investor buyer than to a
workforce household.

Has the County estimated
the compliance cost per
operator, and whether it
scales with the size or value
of the rental?

Reduced STR revenue New restrictions on occupancy,
with no funding offset access and district eligibility
reduce the pool of STRs and
constrain revenue for existing
ones.

Section V's own
recommendation to
dedicate unrestricted TOT
revenue to workforce
housing depends on a
healthy STR/tourism base.
Constraining that base while

Has the County modeled
how the proposed
restrictions would affect
projected TOT collections,
and therefore the funding
available for the housing

Provision

What the draft does

Effect on workforce housing Question for the Board
relying on its tax revenue for incentive program
housing works in two
recommended in Section V?
directions at once.

No tracking of actual
post-restriction
outcomes

The draft contains no reporting
requirement on what happens
to a property after an STR
permit is denied, revoked, or
not renewed.

Without tracking, there is no
way to confirm whether a
restricted property became
affordable workforce
housing, an expensive
resale, or a vacant second
home — or to know
whether the ordinance is
achieving its stated purpose.

Would the Board consider a
reporting requirement or a
monitoring cadence (paired
with the market-trend
monitoring already
recommended in Section V)
to track this directly?

IV. Additional Process Recommendations
Two companion process reforms, developed alongside this review, would address legitimate operational
concerns without expanding the scope of what requires discretionary review:
●

SUP processing timeline reform. Page County Code § 125-54(E) allows up to 180 days for a
Planning Commission recommendation after staff's findings report, and up to 12 months for
Board action thereafter. We recommend the Board adopt tiered targets (a 60-day expedited
track, a 90-day standard track, and a 100-day track for identified issues), concurrent agency
review, and public reporting of processing times — consistent with Va. Code § 15.2-2204's
allowance for concurrent notice and joint hearings.

●

Expedited SUP continuation after a sale. Page County Code § 125-54(E)(4) states that approved
special uses run with the land. We recommend a 5–10-business-day administrative process to
confirm continuation of an unchanged, compliant STR operation after a sale, available for review
before closing, so that a change of ownership alone does not interrupt an already-approved use.

V. Recommendations
The data doesn't show a market that's broken, and the draft carries open legal questions the Board
hasn't yet had answered in writing. Given that, we believe the more prudent — and more effective —
path is the one below: it responds directly to every concern that's been raised, without the exposure the
current draft carries.
●

Do not approve the proposed amendments as drafted. The data in Section II does not support
the three concerns cited as justification, and the draft carries the open legal questions identified
in Section III without a demonstrated housing benefit to offset that risk.

●

Require a Special Use Permit for STRs within the County's designated Growth Tiers, rather
than the by-right/SUP structure in the current draft. This targets discretionary review where
growth and infrastructure pressure are actually concentrated, without the countywide bedroom
and access thresholds that raise open questions in Section III and are in tension with workforcehousing goals.

●

Direct staff to monitor STR industry trends and maintain ongoing community engagement,
rather than legislate now. Track supply, occupancy, ADR, and growth rate (Section II.B)
alongside the sales-conversion rate (Section II.C) on a regular cadence, and engage directly with
affected subdivisions and HOAs/POAs on the “sense of community” concern, which market data

cannot answer. Revisit zoning only if that ongoing monitoring shows an actual, measurable
problem.
●

Develop a revised noise ordinance. A targeted, enforceable noise standard addresses the
specific, substantiated nuisance complaint directly — with clear standards and consistent
enforcement — rather than through broad, indirect proxies like bedroom count or shared-lane
access that do not reliably predict noise impact.

●

Set aside a portion of unrestricted Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue to directly
incentivize workforce housing construction. The County's FY2026 (unaudited) TOT collections
total $4.5 million; of that, $1.35 million is restricted, leaving $3.15 million unrestricted for
County needs and incentives. We recommend the Board consider dedicating a portion of that
unrestricted balance to a workforce-housing incentive program for developers and real estate
owners — subject to confirming the applicable funding authority under Va. Code § 58.1-3819 —
which puts STR-generated revenue to work solving the affordability problem directly.

●

Adopt the SUP process reforms in Section IV. A predictable, time-bound SUP process and an
expedited continuation-after-sale process reduce cost and uncertainty for compliant operators
without expanding what requires discretionary review.

●

If the Board nonetheless wishes to pursue broader zoning changes, send the draft back
through the Planning Commission for a clear recommendation, correct the drafting and crossreference errors identified in Section III, have Planning staff model the bedroom and access
thresholds against the workforce-housing conflicts identified in this report before adoption.

VI. Supporting Documents
The following materials, compiled by the Tourism Council's working group and referenced throughout
this report, are available to the Board on request:
AirDNA Monthly Report (Luray/Page County submarket, data through mid-2026)

Provided to the Board. Source for occupancy (~50%), ADR ($283), available listings, YoY supply growth
deceleration, and length-of-stay data cited in Sections II–III.

Page County Housing Plan, REV2 (2026 draft)

The County's own commissioned housing study. Source for the 741-listing STR count, 9,907 households, median
home value/rent trends, building permit trends, and the study's own finding that STR conversion is “a relatively
small number — only about 7% of the houses sold.”

Report – STR Residential Sales (Bright MLS analysis, Jan. 2020–Nov. 2025)

Independent MLS-based sales analysis. Source for the 777 unique county sales / 97 existing-STR / 57 newconversion figures in Section II.

Tourism & Performance in Page County (Virginia Tourism Corporation, Sept. 2025 data)

Newly provided. Source for 2025 visitor spending ($109.6M), tourism employment (1,055 jobs), state/local tax
impact ($9.4M), and Shenandoah Valley regional comparisons in Section II.
Sources: Page County Housing Plan (2026 draft); AirDNA Monthly Report, Luray Submarket; Bright MLS-based analysis of Page
County residential sales, Jan. 2020–Nov. 2025; Virginia Tourism Corporation, Tourism & Performance in Page County (Sept. 2025
data); Code of Virginia §§ 15.2-983, 15.2-2204, 15.2-2209, 15.2-2282, 15.2-2284, 15.2-2286, 15.2-2305.1, 15.2-2307, 15.2-958,
27-97, 58.1-3819, 58.1-3851; 12VAC5-610-670; 13VAC5-52-170 and 13VAC5-52-20; Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code §
503; Page County Code §§ 125-9 through 125-12, 125-30.21, 125-54; Page County FY2026 (unaudited) Transient Occupancy Tax
collections data; Tourism Council working-group research materials listed above.

TOURISM & PERFORMANCE IN PAGE
COUNTY
VIRGINIA TOURISM CORPORATION

September 2025

VIRGINIA’S VISITOR SPENDING REACHED $36.2 BILLION IN
2025, UP 3.1% FROM 2024
Annual Visitor Spending
Billions of Dollars
$41

$36

$31

20.3%
�30.3

�29.1

44.0%
�25.2

$26

$21

$16

9.8%
�33.3

5.4%
�35.1

3.1%
�36.2

2020

2021

Annual Visitor
Spending (Billions)

Level vs 2019

2019

�29.1

-

2020

�17.5

-40%

2021

�25.2

-13%

2022

�30.3

+4%

2023

�33.3

+14%

2024

�35.1

+21%

2025

�36.2

+25%

• Travelers spent $99 Million per day in
Virginia in 2025, with experienced-based
spending driving overall growth.

-39.7%
�17.5
2019

Year

2022

2023

2024

2025

• Leisure travel remained the primary driver of
spending growth in 2025 as travelers
increasingly prioritized value and
destinations closer to home.

Source: Tourism Economics – Annual Impact of Visitors in Virginia Report, Prepared for VTC

PAGE COUNTY VISITOR SPENDING REACHED NEARLY $110
MILLION IN 2025, UP 4.5% FROM 2024
VISITOR SPENDING EXCEEDED PRE-PANDEMIC LEVELS BY ABOUT 22%
Page County - Visitor Spending
Millions of Dollars
$120

52.5%
�111.1

$110

-2.6%
�108.1

0.5%
�108.7

-3.5%
�104.9

4.5%
�109.6

$100
$90

�90.1

$80

-19.1%
�72.9

2019

2020

Annual Visitor
Spending (Millions)

Level vs 2019

2019

�90.1

-

2020

�72.9

-19%

2021

�111.1

+23%

2022

�108.1

+20%

2023

�108.7

+21%

2024

�104.9

+17%

2025

�109.6

+22%

• Page County’s spending growth was
driven by strong increases in Food &
Beverages, Lodging, and Retail spending.

$70
$60

Year

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Source: Tourism Economics – Annual Impact of Visitors in Virginia Report, Prepared for VTC

LODGING AND RECREATION SPENDING ACCOUNT FOR
NEARLY 64% OF VISITOR SPENDING IN PAGE COUNTY
Page County 2025 Visitor Spending by Industry
LODGING

RECREATION

RETAIL

$21.0M
19.2%

$19.2M
17.6%

FOOD AND BEVERAGE

TRANSPORT

• These shares look different for every locality
and region in Virginia and reflect the
economic makeup of every local community.
$42.50
38.8%

$16.6M
15.1%

$10.30
9.4%

Source: Tourism Economics – Annual Impact of Visitors in Virginia Report, Prepared for VTC

• The shares of Lodging, Recreation, and Retail
are above state averages.

TOURISM JOBS IN PAGE COUNTY HAS FULLY RECOVERED
FROM PRE-PANDEMIC LEVELS

TOURISM JOBS IN MANY VIRGINIA LOCALITIES HAVE NOT YET FULLY RECOVERED
TO THE 2019 LEVELS

Page County – Tourism Employment
1,200
1,000

1,066

983

1,074

1,061

1,051

•

Tourism jobs recovery in Page
County was faster than the
Shenandoah Valley Region.
2025 tourism employment in
the county exceeded 2019
levels by 8%.

•

Shenandoah Valley region’s
tourism employment has also
fully recovered and exceeded
pre-pandemic levels by 2%.

•

Statewide, the total tourism
industry employment is 97%
back to 2019 levels. most of
those unrecovered jobs are in
accommodation sector.

1,055

845

800
600
400
200
0

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

Source: Tourism Economics – Annual Impact of Visitors in Virginia Report, Prepared for VTC

2025

5

VISITORS TO PAGE COUNTY PAID $9.4M IN STATE & LOCAL
TAXES IN 2025 – HELPING OFFSET TAXES FOR RESIDENTS

$3.1M
STATE

$9.4M IN
TOURISM
REVENUES
$6.4M
LOCAL

•

Visitors offset approximately �951.4 in annual state &
local taxes for the average Page County Household

•

Page County ranks 25th across Virginia’s 133 localities
for taxes offset per household – while being ranked
71st in household population

State Revenue Sources:
•

Virginia State Sales Tax

•

Personal Income Tax for Tourism Industry Employees

•

Corporate Taxes

•

State Excise Taxes & Fees (Fuel Tax)

Local Revenue Sources:
•

Local Option Sales Tax

•

Local Excise Taxes (Meals Tax)

•

Property Taxes

Source: Tourism Economics – Annual Impact of Visitors in Virginia Report, Prepared for VTC

6

SHENANDOAH VALLEY VISITOR SPENDING CONTINUES TO
GROW - EXCEEDING 2019 LEVELS BY 30%
Shenandoah Valley Annual Visitor Spending

Year

Annual Visitor
Spending (Billions)

Level vs 2019

2019

�1.34

-

2020

�1.00

-26%

2021

�1.44

+7%

2022

�1.56

+16%

$1.3

2023

�1.60

+20%

$1.2

2024

�1.65

+24%

2025

�1.74

+30%

Billions of Dollars

$1.8
$1.7
$1.6

44.2%
�1.44

$1.5
$1.4

8.2%
�1.56

2.9%
�1.60

3.3%
�1.65

5.1%
�1.74

�1.34

-25.6%
�1.00

$1.1
$1.0
$0.9
$0.8

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

• The Shenandoah Valley’s visitor spending
grew 5.1% over 2024, making it the fourth
fastest growing region in the state for visitor
spending in 2025.

Source: Tourism Economics – Annual Impact of Visitors in Virginia Report, Prepared for VTC

7

SHENANDOAH VALLEY RANKED THIRD AMONG VIRGINIA
TOURISM REGIONS FOR HOTEL REVENUE GROWTH IN 2025
2025 Full Year Hotel Revenue Growth vs. 2024

2025 Hotel Revenue Growth

-0.4%

Shenandoah Valley: +4.5%
Virginia: +2.3%
United States: +0.5%

+4.5%

-2.0%
+7.6%

+1.4%

+0.4%

-3.2%
+4.2%

5.4%

2.0%

Source: CoSTAR REALTY INFORMATION, INC. REPULICATION OR OTHER RE-USE OF THIS DATA WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COSTAR IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED

8

HOTEL PERFORMANCE IN THE VALLEY CONTINUES TO
REMAIN MODERATELY STRONG IN 2026
Year to Date Hotel Revenue Growth in Virginia Through September 05, 2026
Hotel Revenue Growth
January 01, 2026 – September 05, 2026
Shenandoah Valley: +4.6%
Virginia: +7.4%
United States: +5.7%

Source: CoSTAR REALTY INFORMATION, INC. REPULICATION OR OTHER RE-USE OF THIS DATA WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COSTAR IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED

STATEWIDE PERFORMANCE CONTINUES TO BE DRIVEN BY
INCREASED DEMAND IN HIGHER-END HOTELS
Virginia Performance by Class Scale
Year over Year Growth Through YTD September 05, 2026
Demand

16.0%

13.6%

14.0%
12.0%

Revenue

11.6%
10.0%

10.0%

6.9%

8.0%
6.0%

5.6%

3.8%

4.0%

7.3%

6.1%
3.2%

4.0%

2.0%
0.0%

0.6% 0.7%
Luxury

Upper Upscale

Upscale

Upper Midscale

Midscale

Economy

Source: CoSTAR REALTY INFORMATION, INC. REPULICATION OR OTHER RE-USE OF THIS DATA WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COSTAR IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED

10

THANK YOU!

11

Narrative: Short-Term Rental Impact on Residential Housing in Page County, Virginia
To evaluate whether short-term rentals (STRs) are significantly reducing the availability of long-term,
owner-occupied housing in Page County, I conducted a comprehensive analysis using the Bright MLS—
the primary and most widely used real estate database serving the Page County market. The purpose of
this analysis was to determine how many residential properties sold in recent years were converted into
new STRs, as well as how many were already operating as STRs prior to sale.
Data Source & Scope
The dataset included all residential sales in Page County between January 1, 2020, and November 18,
2025, totaling 1,511 MLS-reported transactions. This gross count includes properties that sold more
than once within the study period.
To ensure accuracy, I removed duplicate sales so that each property was counted only once:
•
•
•

1,511 transactions
135 properties sold more than once
1,377 unique properties

Because the purpose of this research is to evaluate the impact on county (non-town) housing stock, townlocated properties were excluded:
•
•
•

640 in-town residential transactions
55 sold more than once
585 unique in-town properties — excluded from the final analysis

This leaves the core dataset representing the housing supply in Page County proper:
•
•
•

847 county-located transactions
70 of these sold more than once
777 unique county residential properties (final dataset)

Identification of STRs Through MLS Designation
Bright MLS allows agents to note whether a property is already operating as a short-term rental at the
time of listing.
From the 777 unique county residential properties:
•
•
•

68 were designated as active STRs in the MLS at the time of listing
5 of these 68 sold more than once
63 unique properties were already active STRs at the time of sale

This represents only 8.1% (63 of 777) of the county residential properties sold.
Cross-Reference With the County’s Short-Term Rental Registry

To ensure the analysis captured STRs not clearly designated by listing agents, I cross-referenced the
county’s official STR list with the MLS dataset.
This cross-reference identified:
•

97 total properties that were operating as STRs at the time of their sale
(including both MLS-disclosed and non-disclosed STRs)

This means:
•

97 existing STRs at time of sale
– 40 more than MLS alone captured
– representing 12.5% of all county properties sold (97 of 777)

How Many New Short-Term Rentals Were Created?
To find the number of new conversions into STR use since January 1, 2020:
•
•
•
•

97 properties were STRs at time of sale
63 were MLS-designated as already operating STRs
The difference: 34 additional non-designated STRs already operating
Total new STRs created during the period: 57

This 57 figure represents:
•
•

Only 7.3% of all unique county residential properties sold (57 of 777)
A conversion rate far too low to materially affect the overall owner-occupied housing supply

Conclusion: STR Conversions Have a Minimal Impact on Residential Housing Supply
Based on this five-year dataset of 777 unique county residential property sales:
•
•

Only 97 properties (12.5%) were operating as STRs at the time of sale
(existing STR stock)
Only 57 properties (7.3%) were newly converted into STRs after being purchased
(new STR creation since Jan 2020)

This data clearly demonstrates that short-term rentals represent a small portion of total residential
home sales in Page County. With only 7.3% of sold homes converting to STR use, there is no
evidence that STR activity is significantly constraining long-term, year-round residential housing
availability.
The data does not support the claim that STR growth is driving a housing shortage or restricting
homeownership opportunities. Instead, the numbers show that STR conversions are occurring at a modest
rate and do not meaningfully reduce the broader supply of homes available to Page County residents.

Monthly Trend for All Markets
Jan 2025 - Dec 2025 vs Jan 2024 - Dec 2024

Occupancy Rate

Average Daily Rate

RevPAR

Booked Listings

Available Listings

Revenue

49.94%

283.39

141.53

728

750

35.6M

1% YoY

0% YoY

0% YoY

7% YoY

6% YoY

7% YoY

Full Historical Data
Timeframe Selector
YTD

Revenue

Full Year

ADR

RevPar

Occupancy Rate

Available Listings

Booked Listings

Room Nights Available

Room Nights Booked

Available Listing Nights (Supply)

Booked Listing Nights (Dem

Available Listings
112.2%
112.2%

Available Listings

600

78.7%
78.7%
400

200

0

0.0%
0.0%
2016

2017

2018

20.5%
20.5%

15.8%
15.8%

6.5%
6.5%

6.0%
6.0%

2019

2020

2021

19.5%
19.5%

2022

2023

14.8%
14.8%

2024

7.7%
7.7%
2025

3.9%
3.9%
2026

Metric Type
Available Listings

Monthly

TTM

Quarterly

Available Listings over Month
800

Available Listings

600

400

200

0

2016-07

2017-01

2017-07

2018-01

2018-07

2019-01

2019-07

2020-01

2020-07

2021-01

2021-07

2022-01

2022-07

2023-01

2023-07

2024-01

2024-07

2025-01

2025-07

2026-01

2026-07

Year-Over-Year Change
Current Year (Jan 2025 - Dec 2025) vs Previous Year (Jan 2024 - Dec 2024) vs 2 Years Ago (Jan 2023 - Dec 2023)
Metric Type
Available Listings

Year-over-year Available Listings Comparison
1-Year Percent Change

Available Listings

5.6%

2-Year Percent Change
0

100

200

300
2 Years Ago

400
Previous Year

500

600

700

19.6%

800

Current Year

Year-over-year Available Listings Comparison by Bedroom

Year-over-year Available Listings Comparison by Price Tier

200

Available Listings

Available Listings

2,000

100

0

Studio

1 bedroom

2 bedrooms
2 Years Ago

3 bedrooms
Previous Year

4 bedrooms
Current Year

5 bedrooms

6+ bedrooms

1,000

0

Budget

Economy
2 Years Ago

Midscale
Previous Year

Upscale
Current Year

Luxury

Supply & Demand
Year

Metric Type

(3) 2026, 2025, 2024

Available Listing Nights (Sup…

Available Listing Nights (Supply)

Available Listing Nights (Supply) by Month over the Years

20k

10k

0

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun
2026

Available Listing Nights (Supply) by Bedroom

Jul
2025

Sep

Oct

Nov

2024

Available Listing Nights (Supply) by Day of the Week
100k

Available Listing Nights (Supply)

Studio
1 bedroom

Property Type

Aug

2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms
4 bedrooms
5 bedrooms
6+ bedrooms

50k

0
0

50k

100k

150k

200k

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

Revenue
Year

Metric Type

(3) 2026, 2025, 2024

Revenue

Revenue by Month over the Years

Revenue

4M

2M

0

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun
2026

Revenue by Bedroom

Jul
2025

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

2024

Revenue by Day of the Week

Studio
20M

2 bedrooms

Revenue

Property Type

1 bedroom

3 bedrooms
4 bedrooms

10M

5 bedrooms
6+ bedrooms

0
0

5M

10M

15M

20M

25M

30M

35M

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

Occupancy
Year
(3) 2026, 2025, 2024

Occupancy Rate by Month over the Years

Occupancy Rate

60.0%

40.0%

20.0%

0.0%
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun
2026

Occupancy Rate by Bedroom

Jul
2025

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Occupancy Rate by Day of the Week
80.0%

Studio
1 bedroom

60.0%

Occupancy Rate

Property Type

Aug

2024

2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms
4 bedrooms

40.0%

20.0%

5 bedrooms
6+ bedrooms
0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

Occupancy Rate

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

0.0%

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Day of Week

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

Nightly Rates
Year
(3) 2026, 2025, 2024

Average Daily Rate by Month over the Years

ADR

300

200

100

0
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun
2026

Average Daily Rate by Bedroom

Jul
2025

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2024

Average Daily Rate by Day of the Week

Studio
300

2 bedrooms

ADR

Property Type

1 bedroom

3 bedrooms

200

4 bedrooms
100
5 bedrooms
6+ bedrooms
0

200

400

600

ADR

800

0

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Day of Week

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

Length of Stay & Booking Lead Time
Metric Type
Booking Lead Time

Booking Lead Time Distribution over Month

Average Booking Lead Time

48.6

91+ – 15.1%

61-90 – 10.0%

Share of Bookings

0-6 – 19.5%

100.0%

50.0%

7-14 – 13.9%
0.0%
31-60 – 21.1%
15-30 – 20.4%

Jan 2025

Feb 2025

Mar 2025

Apr 2025
91+

May 2025

Jun 2025

61-90

31-60

Jul 2025
15-30

Aug 2025
7-14

0-6

Sep 2025

Oct 2025

Nov 2025

Dec 2025

RESOLUTION REQUESTING FULL PROJECT DISCLOSURE, ADDITIONAL
ANALYSIS, AND MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY REVIEW PRIOR TO THE FILING OR
ADVANCEMENT OF THE FIRSTENERGY PAGE-SPERRYVILLE 138 kV
TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD PROJECT
WHEREAS, FirstEnergy has proposed the reconstruction of the existing Page-Sperryville 138
kilovolt transmission line between Luray and Sperryville through replacement of aging
infrastructure and installation of new transmission structures; and
WHEREAS, primary regulatory oversight and approval authority for high-voltage transmission
line projects in the Commonwealth of Virginia rests with the Virginia State Corporation
Commission (SCC); and
WHEREAS, while local land use authority over electric transmission lines is limited, the Board
of Supervisors serves as an advocate for the health, safety, welfare, scenic heritage, and
economic interests of Page County residents; and
WHEREAS, portions of the proposed project pass through areas of exceptional scenic,
environmental, recreational, historical, and economic importance to Page County, including the
Shenandoah National Park; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors recognizes the importance of maintaining safe and
reliable electric service while ensuring that utility infrastructure projects are planned, justified,
and implemented in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on local communities; and
WHEREAS, numerous residents have expressed concerns regarding visual impacts, structure
heights, right-of-way clearing, property rights, environmental effects, construction impacts, and
the potential for future transmission expansion; and
WHEREAS, numerous residents have expressed concerns that this project will result in an
increase to their utility rates when the upgrades are being done to serve outside third party
interests such as data center development in other jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that complete and transparent information is necessary for
informed public participation and regulatory review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Page County Board of Supervisors
requests that FirstEnergy provide the following:
1. Detailed engineering justification for proposed structure heights, materials, configuration, and
right-of-way requirements.
2. Comprehensive alternatives analysis including lower-profile structures and undergrounding
options in visually sensitive locations.
3. Professional visual simulations from Skyline Drive, and other significant public viewpoints.

4. Comprehensive assessment of impacts on tourism, recreation, businesses, agriculture,
conservation investments, and property values.
5. Documentation concerning property-owner rights, easement modifications, and land access
requirements.
6. Detailed construction, restoration, and mitigation plans.
7. Full disclosure regarding future transmission capacity and potential future expansion
capability.
8. Clear and transparent access to project information throughout permitting, design, and
construction.
9. Full disclosure regarding intended financing of the project and whether there are proposed or
anticipated rate increases for current utility consumers to fund the project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board requests the SCC and all applicable state and
federal agencies thoroughly evaluate environmental, scenic, historic, cultural, economic, and
community impacts before issuing permits or approvals.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Board reaffirms its commitment to protecting the
scenic beauty, rural character, natural resources, private property rights, and quality of life of
Page County while supporting responsible and transparent utility infrastructure planning.
This Resolution was adopted by the Page County Board of Supervisors this 19th day of October,
2026.

_________________________

________________________

Clifton Thomas, Chairman

Allen Louderback, Vice Chair

Page County
Board of Supervisors

Agenda Item
Meeting Date: October 19, 2026
SUBJECT:

Board and Commission Appointments

Board of Zoning Appeals:
There is currently a vacancy on the Board of Zoning Appeals for District 5. Billy Turner has
expressed interest and is willing to serve. Supervisor Vaughan would like to recommend him for
appointment. Appointments to the BZA are recommended by the Board and officially appointed
by the Circuit Court Judge. If appointed, his term would expire November 8, 2029.
Motion: I move to recommend Billy Turner for appointment, to fill the District 5 seat, on the Board
of Zoning Appeals, for an unexpired term through November 8, 2029.

Other Vacancies:
Board of Zoning Appeals – District 4
Building Code Appeals Board – District 1 & 5, Alternate
Economic Development Authority – District 5
Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission – Local Official
Northwestern Community Services Board Member
Social Services Board – District 5

Page County
Board of Supervisors

Agenda Item
Meeting Date: October 19, 2026

SUBJECT:

Consent Agenda

SUMMARY:
The Consent Agenda is a part of the Board’s regular meeting agenda, which includes the financial reports,
accounts payable and payroll, the meeting minutes for the prior month, and any other items which would
not require discussion.
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of the Consent Agenda is to provide a method for the expeditious handling of items which
will not require discussion by the Board. The Code of Virginia requires the Board of Supervisors to
approve accounts payable and payroll checks as well as payroll related electronic fund transfers.
According to the Board’s Rules of Procedure, all warrants must be presented to the Board of Supervisors
for action as a consent agenda item at their regular meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The accounts payable checks, payroll checks, payroll direct deposit, and payroll tax electronic fund
transfers for the County and Social Services totaling $3,188,928.41 for the month of September 2026 and
six coyote claims totaling $300, leaving a balance of $700 in the fund.
MOTION:
I move to approve the Consent Agenda as follows:
 Financial reports for the period of September 1-30, 2026;
 Accounts payable checks, payroll checks, payroll direct deposits, and payroll tax related
electronic fund transfers totaling $3,188,928.41 for the month of September 2026;
 Minutes of September 8, 2026 and September 21, 2026;
 Six coyote claims for Bryan Nelson totaling $300.

Minutes
Board of Supervisors
Work Session
September 8, 2026
Members Present:

Clifton Thomas, Chairman At-Large
Jeremy Baldwin, District 1
Allen Louderback, District 2, first Vice Chair
Ryan Cubbage, District 3, second Vice Chair
Susan Kile, District 4
Jeff Vaughan, District 5

Staff Present:

Amity Moler, County Administrator
Nina Fox, Director Economic Development & Tourism
Rebecca Armstrong, Communications & Marketing Coordinator
Kimberly Donohoe, Executive Assistant
Michael Helm, County Attorney

Call to Order:
Chairman Clifton Thomas called to order the work session of the Page County Board of
Supervisors on September 8, 2026, at 6:30 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors Room
located in the Page County Government Center, 103 South Court Street, Luray, VA 22835.
Closed Session:
Motion: Supervisor Cubbage moved that the Page County Board of Supervisors convene
in a closed meeting under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act for the discussion or
consideration of the acquisition of real property for a public purpose, specifically
concerning the negotiation of a prospective real property lease agreement where the
public body would be the tenant, because discussion in an open meeting would adversely
affect our bargaining position or negotiating strategy, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(3)
of the Code of Virginia; and for consultation with legal counsel regarding specific legal
matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel, specifically concerning
the legal terms, liabilities, and obligations contained within the draft lease agreement,
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(8) of the Code of Virginia. Supervisor Vaughan seconded
and the motion carried by a vote of 6-0. Aye: Baldwin, Louderback, Cubbage, Kile,
Vaughan, Thomas. Nay: None.
Exit Closed Session:
Motion: Supervisor Vaughan moved that the closed meeting be adjourned and the Page
County Board of Supervisors reconvene in open session. Supervisor Cubbage seconded
and the motion carried by a vote of 6-0. Aye: Louderback, Cubbage, Kile, Vaughan,
Thomas, Baldwin. Nay: None.

Board of Supervisors
Minutes – September 8, 2026

Certification of Closed Session:
To the best of my knowledge (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open
meeting requirements under Section 2.2-3711 (A) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion by
which the closed meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered in the
meeting.
Recorded Roll Call Vote:
Jeremy Baldwin
Allen Louderback
Ryan Cubbage
Susan Kile
Jeff Vaughan
Bucky Thomas

AYE
X
X
X
X
X
X

NAY

ABSENT

ABSTAIN

Recess: 7:03 p.m.
Reconvene:
Chairman Thomas reconvened the meeting at 7:09 p.m. The Call to Order was followed
by Supervisor Louderback leading a Moment of Silence and the Pledge of Allegiance.
Presentation of the AFID Grant:
Mrs. Nina Fox, Director of Economic Development & Tourism, presented the $50,000
AFID (Agriculture & Forestry Industries Development Fund) infrastructure grant to the
Board. The grant will fund a multi-use community infrastructure facility that will house a
fully licensed shared-use commercial kitchen, a food truck commissary, a restaurant
incubator program, and a Visitor Center. The grant includes a $12,500 contribution, which
Mrs. Fox recommends financing with transient occupancy tax (TOT) funds. The grant has
been awarded, and Mrs. Fox asked if the Board wants to move forward.
Chairman Thomas asked for the project timeline. Mrs. Fox noted that it is a two-year
project.
Supervisor Cubbage recommended that the Board and the Town of Luray discuss the
current Visitor Center and vote on accepting the grant at the September 21, 2026, regular
meeting. The Board was in consensus.
Clerk of the Court Update:
Mr. C. Grayson Markowitz, Clerk of Circuit Court, provided the Board with an update on
the Clerk’s Office. Mr. Markowitz highlighted how subscription services fund the office’s
technology.

2

Board of Supervisors
Minutes – September 8, 2026

Commonwealth’s Attorney Update:
Mr. Chapman Good, Commonwealth’s Attorney, updated the Board on the
Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office, highlighting the Victim-Witness program.
FirstEnergy Page-Sperryville Transmission Line Rebuild Project:
Mr. Kyle Hart, Mid-Atlantic Program Manager at the National Parks Conservation
Association, spoke to the Board about the FirstEnergy transmission line rebuild project.
He encouraged the Board to ask questions about the cost, timeline, why capacity is being
increased, and whether alternatives to steel poles exist.
Schools Local Composite Index Update:
Dr. Bryan Huber, Division Superintendent, updated the Board on the facility master plan.
Dr. Huber introduced the PCPS Facilities Study landing page, which includes an email
address for facility study-related questions.
Dr. Huber discussed how local funding is derived and the County’s potential future share.
Supervisor Louderback asked if redistricting was an option.
Supervisor Cubbage asked for a joint meeting to be scheduled between the Board and
the School Board.
Northwestern Community Services FY27 Performance Contract:
Mrs. Amity Moler, County Administrator, presented the Northwestern Community Services
FY27 performance contract to the Board. Mrs. Moler reminded the Board that the agency
provides substance abuse, developmental disorder, and crisis intervention counseling
and has introduced walk-in hours this year. Mrs. Moler noted that Page County’s annual
contribution is $118,442 out of a total $1.6 million local dollar contribution.
Motion: Supervisor Cubbage moved that the Page County Board of Supervisors approve
the Northwestern Community Services FY27 performance contract. Supervisor Kile
seconded and the motion carried by a vote of 6-0. Aye: Thomas, Baldwin, Louderback,
Cubbage, Kile, Vaughan. Nay: None.
Discussion of Timelines for Special Use Permits:
Supervisor Cubbage asked the Board to consider streamlining the SUP timeline because
possible changes to short-term rental regulations could increase staff workload.
Supervisor Cubbage proposed reducing the Planning Commission review period from
180 to 100 days, with an option to extend in extraordinary situations, and asked whether
the Board of Supervisors’ public hearing could be scheduled earlier in the review process.
The Board was in consensus that Mr. Jared Burner, Chairman, Page County Planning
Commission, will notify the Planning Commission that the Board is considering adjusting
its review period for SUPs.
The Board was in consensus that Mr. Helm research how to define the process for
extending the Planning Commission’s review period, if needed.
3

Board of Supervisors
Minutes – September 8, 2026

Update:
Mrs. Moler notified the Board that the DMV Select will open on Monday, September 14,
2026.
Adjourn: 9:50 p.m.
With no further business to discuss, Chairman Thomas adjourned the meeting.

________________________________
Clifton Thomas, Chairman At-Large

________________________________
Amity Moler, County Administrator

4

Minutes
Board of Supervisors
Regular Meeting
September 21, 2026

Members Present:

Clifton Thomas, Chairman At-Large
Jeremy Baldwin, District 1
Allen Louderback, District 2, first Vice Chair
Ryan Cubbage, District 3, second Vice Chair
Susan Kile, District 4
Jeff Vaughan, District 5

Staff Present:

Amity Moler, County Administrator
Regina Harner, Assistant County Administrator
Nina Fox, Director Economic Development and Tourism
Tyler Olsen, Finance Director
Tracy Clatterbuck, Zoning Administrator I
Josh Hahn, Planning Director
Rebecca Armstrong, Communications & Marketing Coordinator
Kimberly Donohoe, Executive Assistant
Michael Helm, County Attorney

Call to Order:
Chairman Thomas called to order the regular meeting of the Page County Board of
Supervisors on Monday, September 21, 2026, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium located in
Luray High School, 243 Bulldog Drive, Luray, VA 22835. The Call to Order was followed
by Supervisor Cubbage leading a Moment of Silence and the Pledge of Allegiance.
Adoption of Agenda:
Motion: Supervisor Cubbage moved to adopt the agenda, as presented. Supervisor
Baldwin seconded and the motion carried by a vote of 6-0. Aye: Thomas, Baldwin,
Louderback, Cubbage, Kile, Vaughan. Nay: None.
Presentations, Proclamations & Awards:
Presentation of the Housing Study:
Mrs. Nina Fox, Director Economic Development & Tourism, introduced David Hill and
Jonah Collins from Hill Studio, the consultants who conducted the housing study, to the
Board. David Hill and Jonah Collins presented the Local Market Study and Feasibility
Study, funded by a Virginia Housing grant awarded to Page County in 2024, to the Board.
Mrs. Fox informed the Board that a housing sub-committee has been created.

Board of Supervisors
Minutes – September 21, 2026

Consent Agenda:
Motion: Supervisor Cubbage moved to approve the Consent Agenda as follows:
 Financial reports for the period of August 1-31, 2026;
 Accounts payable checks, payroll checks, payroll direct deposits, and payroll tax
related electronic fund transfers totaling $3,751,191.34 for the month of August
2026;
 Minutes of August 3, 2026 and August 17, 2026.
Supervisor Vaughan seconded and the motion carried by a vote of 6-0. Aye: Baldwin,
Louderback, Cubbage, Kile, Vaughan, Thomas. Nay: None.
Public Hearings:
Budget Amendment:
The public hearing for the budget amendment was advertised as follows:
******
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BUDGET AMENDMENT
PAGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
On September 21, 2026, at 7:00 p.m., the Page County Board of Supervisors will conduct
a public hearing at Luray High School, 243 Bulldog Drive, Luray, VA 22835, for the
purpose of considering an amendment to the fiscal year 2027 budget. The aggregate
amount of the amendments exceed one percent of the fiscal year 2027 budget and the
public hearing is required by Section 15.2-2507 of the Code of Virginia.
REVENUE:

General Fund Balance $ 16,077
Tourism Fund Balance 106,163
Local Funds 8,435
State Funds 59,500
Federal Funds 501,486

EXPENDITURE:

General Fund $ 570,204
Tourism Fund 106,163
CIP Fund 7,294
Recreation Enterprise Fund 8,000

******
Chairman Thomas opened the public hearing on the budget amendment at 7:35 p.m.
Mr. Tyler Olsen, Finance Director, informed the Board that the GIS Department’s ten yearold plotter printer has stopped working. A new 36-inch plotter costs $7,294, and this year’s
portion of the five-year service agreement costs $450. It is requested that this is funded
with the General Fund Balance.

2

Board of Supervisors
Minutes – September 21, 2026

The Recreation Department received an $8,000 donation for this year’s portion of the
lease agreement for the robotic field painter. It is requested that these local funds are
appropriated for this lease.
As of the end of FY 2026, the Animal Shelter had $435 of its SpayVA Grant remaining. It
is requested that these local funds are appropriated for spaying and neutering.
The Economic Development and Tourism Department is requesting $6,500 from the
Tourism Fund Balance for advertising. If approved, these funds will be used to purchase
Page Valley branded hats, pens, bags, umbrellas, and other promotional materials. These
items will be given through giveaway programs and at events and conferences.
The Economic Development and Tourism Department also requests carryovers from the
Tourism Fund Balance for projects that were approved and started in FY 2026. If
approved, $33,663 will be used for the Town of Stanley’s promotional videos, and
$66,000 will be used for the Town of Shenandoah’s pump track.
The Sheriff’s Office has received three new grants. The first is an SRO grant for the new
full-time SRO position at Page County Middle School. This grant will provide $56,000,
and the local match requirement is $31,637. A locally-funded part-time SRO is retiring,
and the remaining of these budgeted funds will be used for the local match; therefore, no
new local funds are needed for this grant in FY 2027. It is requested that these state funds
are appropriated for the new full-time position.
The second, a TRIAD grant, will provide $2,500 for expenses related to community
outreach activities and attending a TRIAD conference. It is requested that these state
funds are appropriated for these expenses.
The third new grant is from ICE, which will provide $107,500 for equipment. The majority
of these funds will be used to purchase vehicles. It is requested that these federal funds
are appropriated for equipment and vehicles, as allowed by the grant.
The Sheriff’s Office is also requesting appropriations for the seven ongoing grants listed
below. These grants were not included in the initial FY 2027 budget because the
remaining balances from the prior fiscal year needed to be confirmed before determining
the amounts to be appropriated. The Law Enforcement (LE) Equipment Grant has a local
match requirement of $8,333.
Grant
HEAT
COPS CIT
De-Escalation
DMV
LOLE Block
LE Equipment

Revenue Source
State
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
General Fund Balance

Expenditure
Amount
Flock Safety Camera Subscription
2,500
Training
245,851
Training
128,910
Patrol Wages, Supplies
8,093
Mobile Data Terminals
1,283
9,849
Equipment, Training
8,333
3

Board of Supervisors
Minutes – September 21, 2026

Public Comments on the Public Hearing:
There were no speakers during the public hearing.
Chairman Thomas closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
Motion: Supervisor Cubbage moved that the Page County Board of Supervisors approve
the revenue of $16,077 from the General Fund Balance, $106,163 from the Tourism Fund
Balance, $8,435 in local funds, $59,500 in state funds, $501,486 in federal funds, and
expenditures of $570,204 to the General Fund budget, $106,163 to the Tourism Fund
budget, $7,294 to the CIP Fund budget, and $8,000 to the Recreation Enterprise Fund
budget. Supervisor Vaughn seconded and the motion carried by a vote of 6-0. Aye:
Louderback, Cubbage, Kile, Vaughan, Thomas, Baldwin. Nay: None.
Supplemental Appropriations Requests Approved:
Dept
GIS
GIS
Rec
Animal
Shelter
Sheriff’s
Office
Sheriff’s
Office
Invstgtns
Sheriff’s
Office
Sheriff’s
Office
Sheriff’s
Office
Sheriff’s
Office
Sheriff’s
Office
Sheriff’s
Office
Sheriff’s
Office
Econ Dev

Description

Revenue Source

Expenditure

Plotter Printer
Purchase
Plotter Printer
Service
Robotic Field
Painter
SpayVA
Carryover

General Fund Bal
101-0000-341-04-07
General Fund Bal
101-0000-341-04-07
Local Donations
590-0000-318-02-38
SpayVA Grant
101-0000-318-02-34
DCJS SRO Grant
101-0000-324-04-45
TRIAD Grant
101-0000-324-04-33
HEAT Grant
101-0000-324-04-54
DOJ COPS CIT Grnt
101-0000-333-01-36
DOJ De-escaltn Grnt
101-0000-333-01-18
ICE Grant
101-0000-333-01-82
DMV Grant
101-0000-333-09-08
JAG LOLE Block
101-0000-333-09-18
BJA LE Equip. Grant
101-0000-333-01-37
General Fund Bal
101-0000-341-04-07
Tourism Fund Bal
210-0000-341-04-07

Plotter
301-9420-541-80-55
Contractual Services
101-8111-481-30-40
Short-Term Lease
590-7110-461-54-11
Spaying, Neutering
101-3510-435-59-01
Salary/Benefits/Tax
101-3130-431-59-57
TRIAD Conf/Activity
101-3130-431-59-02
Camera Subscription
101-3120-431-59-27
Training
101-3120-431-59-22
Training
101-3120-431-59-03
Equipment
101-3120-431-59-67
Ptrl Wage/ Supplies
101-3120-431-59-24
Mobile Data Trmnls
101-3120-431-59-04
Equipment/Training
101-3120-431-59-09
Equipment/Training
101-3120-431-59-09
Advertising
210-8150-481-30-30

PCMS SRO
TRIAD Grant
Flock
Cameras
DOJ COPS
CIT Grant
DOJ Deescaltn Grant
ICE Grant
Patrol Wage/
Supplies
Terminals
Carryover
Equip/Train
Carryover
Local Match
Carryover
Promotional
Materials

Requested
Amount
7,294
450
8,000
435
56,000
2,500
1,000
245,851
128,910
107,500
8,093
1,283
9,849
8,333
6,500
4

Board of Supervisors
Minutes – September 21, 2026

Econ Dev
Econ Dev
Total
Requests

Stanley Video
Carryover
Pump Track
Carryover

Tourism Fund Bal
210-0000-341-04-07
Tourism Fund Bal
210-0000-341-04-07

Stanley Promotions
210-8150-481-58-04
Shen Pump Track
210-8150-481-58-03

33,663
66,000
691,661

Zoning Ordinance Amendments (Short Term Rentals):
The public hearing on the zoning ordinance amendments was advertised as follows:
******
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PAGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
NOTICE is hereby given pursuant to Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, as
amended, that the PAGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS shall hold a public
hearing at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 21, 2026, located at Luray High School, 243
Bulldog Drive, Luray, VA, to receive public comments and to consider the following
amendments to the Page County Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 125):
In Article II (Word Usage and Definitions), amend Section 125-4 (Definitions) as follows:
• Add a new definition for “short-term tourist rental, owner-occupied.”
In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-9 (Woodland-Conservation), amend
Section 125-9.B(7) relating to Bed and Breakfast Establishments and Short-Term Tourist
Rentals permitted by-right.
In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-9 (Woodland-Conservation), add Section
125-9.B(8) relating to Short-Term Tourist Rentals permitted by-right and adjust
numbering.
In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-9 (Woodland-Conservation), add Section
125-9.B(9) relating to “owner-occupied short-term tourist rentals, subject to the provisions
of Section 125-30.21 (if applicable)” and adjust numbering.
In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-9 (Woodland-Conservation) add Section
125-9.D(21) relating to Short-Term Tourist Rentals permitted by special use permit.
In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-10 (Agriculture), amend Section 12510.B(8) relating to Bed and Breakfast Establishments and Short-Term Tourist Rentals
permitted by-right.
In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-10 (Agriculture), amend Section 12510.B(9) relating to Short-Term Tourist Rentals permitted by-right.
5

Board of Supervisors
Minutes – September 21, 2026

In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-10 (Agriculture), add Section 125-10.B(10)
relating to “owner-occupied short-term tourist rentals, subject to the provisions of Section
125-30.21 (if applicable)” and adjust numbering.
In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-10 (Agriculture) add Section 125-10.D(28)
relating to Short-Term Tourist Rentals permitted by special use permit.
In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-11 (Residential), amend Section 12511.B(12) to read “owner-occupied short-term tourist rentals, subject to the provisions of
Section 125-30.21 (if applicable)”.
In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-11 (Residential) add Section 125-11.D(9)
relating to Short-Term Tourist Rentals permitted by special use permit.
In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-12 (Commercial), amend Section 12512.B(9) by adding “owner-occupied short-term tourist rentals, subject to the provisions of
Section 125-30.21 (if applicable).”
In Article IV (District Regulations), Section 125-12 (Commercial), amend Section 12512.B(13) by adding language to reflect only one single-family detached dwelling is
permitted.
In Article V (Supplementary Regulations), Section 125-30.21 (Short-term tourist rentals),
multiple amendments through entire section relating to short-term tourist rentals.
The full text of the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance may be reviewed in
the Planning & Community Development Office, 103 South Court Street, Suite B, Luray,
VA, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. They may also be reviewed on the County’s
website at www.pagecounty.virginia.gov. NOTE: Hearing impaired individuals who need
an interpreter must notify the Zoning Office at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing.
******
Chairman Thomas opened the public hearing on the zoning ordinance amendments at
7:42 p.m.
Ms. Tracy Clatterbuck, Zoning Administrator I, advised the Board that on June 17, 2025,
the Board of Supervisors held a retreat to discuss a number of topics, one of which was
short term tourist rentals (STR’s). On September 2, 2025, a joint meeting was held
between the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to discuss a number of
topics, again, one specifically being STR’s. As a result of that joint meeting, the Board of
Supervisors established a steering committee to focus on issues related to STR’s. The
steering committee met over the course of a few months. On March 2, 2026, Supervisor
Cubbage presented findings of the steering committee to the Board of Supervisors. As a
result of that discussion, it was the consensus of the Board of Supervisors to send the
steering committee’s findings and proposed recommendations to the Planning
Commission for further consideration.
6

Board of Supervisors
Minutes – September 21, 2026

The draft that came out of the Planning Commission was presented to the Board back on
August 3, 2026. In the staff memo dated July 15, 2026, that was introduced to the Board,
staff provided a number of recommendations of language to be amended and/or removed
due to enforcement concerns. During the introduction meeting, the Board agreed to
amend/and or remove the language as staff suggested. The attached draft dated 8/4/26
and the brief description below reflect those changes.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 14, 2026, where they referred
the proposed zoning ordinance amendments relating to short-term rentals without
recommendation to the Board.
If the provision remains that more than three dwellings on private land or driveway require
an SUP (special use permit) in the Agriculture or Woodland-Conservation district, Ms.
Clatterbuck encouraged the Board to consider what specific factors will be considered
when reviewing the SUP application, will the County establish requirements for private
road maintenance during the review of the SUP, will the County impose a fee specifically
for private road maintenance, if the County is not going to regulate or participate in road
maintenance what specific public interests or concerns is the SUP intended to address,
and would the same concerns exist if the dwelling was a short-term or a long-term rental.
Ms. Clatterbuck asked that, if the County does not intend to establish and enforce road
maintenance requirements, collect a road maintenance fee, or assume responsibility for
maintaining the private road, what is the SUP intended to accomplish that could not be
addressed through objective access standards?
Public Comments on the Public Hearing:
Gage Wilson noted that local families count on the revenue generated by short-term
rentals.
Junniy Merica analyzed the ordinance amendments related to short-term rentals for a
government class. She urged the Board to protect the local families and property owners
who built the foundation of the tourism economy. She supported grandfathering in existing
short-term rentals operating in compliance and removing the two-year ownership
restriction.
Kris Garrett suggested giving local speakers first consideration. She supported slowing
the growth of short-term rentals and asked the Board to base its decisions on the views
of residents who are vested in Page County.
Jon Copper noted the growing trend of multi-generational travel and asked the Board to
change the bedroom requirement to a minimum of four.
Rob Johnson is a short-term rental owner who hires locals and drives business to local
restaurants. He thanked the Board for the reasonable and common-sense regulations
that encourage short-term rentals.

7

Board of Supervisors
Minutes – September 21, 2026

Babette Thorpe supported the ordinance amendments related to short-term rentals. She
supported requiring SUPs for short-term rentals so that neighbors can voice their
concerns and questioned allowing short-term rentals in the Woodland-Conservation
district.
Brian Wilfong supported conveying short-term rentals to new owners. He noted that
stopping short-term rentals does not make sense.
Claudia Munoz noted that she owns a short-term rental and renting it when she is not
using it helps with the costs of ownership. Her short-term rental supports local
businesses. She noted that responsible owners need reasonable predictability, and she
supports reasonable short-term rental regulations. She asked the Board to focus
regulations on actual impact and operator behavior.
Cara Sottosanti noted that eliminating outside investment would affect her business. She
stated that tourism is the number two industry in Page County, and that manufacturers
are not coming here, but residents do not want solar farms, chicken houses, or data
centers. She asked if the County would hire new staff to help with the new regulations.
She noted that since there is no consensus across County government offices, perhaps
nothing should be changed.
Lisa Gander noted that her short-term rentals are the only reason she can afford to
continue farming.
Andy Caviness noted that he owns short-term rentals and supported grandfathering the
ability to rent to whoever purchases the property.
J.D. Cave noted that he owns short-term rentals. He expressed concerns about
regulations concerning private roads and restricting the number of bedrooms. He noted
that more regulations will need additional staff and that no new regulations are needed.
Nick Whitelock noted that short-term rentals do not affect available housing.
Hap Smith noted that he owns short-term rentals. He noted that there is no correlation
between short-term rentals and affordable housing. He asked the Board to focus only on
the County.
Josh Silverman supports meaningful regulations. He noted that uncontrolled growth of
short-term rentals is taking homes off the market. He recommended capping the shortterm rental permits by owner. He recommended a public online database of short-term
rentals.
Duane Painter noted that families bring more funding to the schools than short-term
rentals. He noted that the outside investors' disposable income remains outside the
County.

8

Board of Supervisors
Minutes – September 21, 2026

Christine Sennott noted she owns short-term rentals. She asked the Board to clearly
define its goals before adopting new regulations. She requested that the Board document
current short-term rental numbers and locations, housing availability, new construction,
complaints, violations, and compliance rates, and evaluate this information in 12 and 24
months.
Randy Howan noted that he owns short-term rentals. He noted that investors shifted to
short-term rentals due to government regulations on long-term rentals. He encouraged
the Board to reject the amendments as written. He recommended that the Board examine
pricing, marketing, and guest experiences before blaming over-saturation.
Laura Castro noted that she owns a short-term rental and expressed concern about the
discussion surrounding people moving to Page County to invest. She asked the Board to
make decisions based on data. She asked the Board not to stop the transfer of short-term
rentals to new owners.
Chairman Thomas closed the public hearing at 8:36 p.m.
The Board was in consensus to vote on this item during the October 19, 2026, regular
meeting.
Public Comments on Agenda Items:
Barbie Stombock spoke in favor of the idea of a shared kitchen but asked whether the
project at the stated location is financially viable. She asked why the Visitor Center was
included in the plan.
Cece Castle spoke against the AFID grant noting the potential cost.
Kevin Boyd spoke against relocating the Visitor Center. He noted the need for more study
on a food hub.
Susan Corbett spoke against relocating the Visitor Center and against the commercial
kitchen noting that she does not see a need. She noted the need for affordable housing
to support agriculture.
Randy Howan noted that the Board asked the Chamber of Commerce to have visitors
complete information cards. Over two years, only 250 cards were completed. He
recommended putting an annual cap on the growth of short-term rentals and using
unrestricted funds for housing projects.
Bernie Miller asked for more sheriff patrols on route 340 north to prevent traffic accidents.

9

Board of Supervisors
Minutes – September 21, 2026

Action Matters:
Acceptance of AFID Grant – Page Valley Food & Visitor Hub:
Approval of Lease Agreement – The Misfits LLC (42 East Main Street, Luray):
Mrs. Fox explained to the Board that approving the AFID grant only enables her office to
further evaluate the proposed project. Mrs. Fox noted that the Economic Development
and Tourism office is partnering with the Virginia Department of Health and Page County’s
Virginia Cooperative Extension office. In 2022, a grant-funded feasibility study was
conducted, and the survey results indicated the need for a commercial kitchen. Mrs. Fox
noted that the funding available for projects managed by the Economic Development and
Tourism office is the transient occupancy tax (TOT). Mrs. Fox explained that to use the
restricted TOT funds, projects must be tourism-centered, and creating a Visitor Hub is a
way to do this. She noted that this project will not stop the County’s funding for the
Chamber of Commerce.
Mrs. Fox noted that, due to a need for more extensive renovations at 42 East Main Street,
Luray, the owner offered five years rent-free and then a $1,500 a month cap on rent after
the first five years. Mrs. Fox asked the Board to provide the office of Economic
Development and Tourism direction on how they would like to proceed regarding a
commercial kitchen.
The Board was in consensus to not vote on either item.
Open Public Comments:
Kathleen Keim spoke in favor of keeping Springfield Elementary School open. She noted
that a survey showed many families would homeschool rather than send their children to
another school.
Jon Cencich spoke in favor of keeping Springfield Elementary School open. He asked
how can the Board plan additional housing while closing schools.
Mike Sessler spoke in favor of keeping Springfield Elementary School open. He finds the
conversation about consolidating schools reckless and unnecessary.
Karen Bauer spoke in favor of keeping Springfield Elementary School open. She
questioned if moving children to a different school would improve academic performance
and if the affected teachers would leave Page County.
Deannah Hass spoke in favor of keeping Springfield Elementary School open. She noted
that the school is a part of the community.
Codi Henry spoke in favor of keeping Springfield Elementary School open. She asked
why the question of levying an additional local sales tax of up to 1%, with the revenue
restricted to capital projects for school construction or renovation, will not be on the ballot
in Page County in November. She noted that when discussing affordable housing, the
salaries of the majority should be considered rather than the average salary.

10

Board of Supervisors
Minutes – September 21, 2026

J.D. Cave asked the Board to be cautious and judicious if requiring SUPs for short-term
rentals. He supports grandfathering in the current short-term rentals. He highlighted those
wearing shirts supporting the effort to keep Springfield Elementary School open.
Randy Wilson noted that he supports Page County schools and teachers. He asked about
getting the additional 1% tax on the ballot in November. He noted that the elementary
schools were placed purposefully with the communities in mind.
Randy Howan asked the Board to remove any discussion about outside owners and
short-term rentals. He noted that property sellers want the option of selling to someone
from outside the County. He noted that the SUP timeline is too long.
Pamela Boyd noted that the growth of short-term rentals contributed to rising property
values, which make up 50% of the local composite index calculation. As property values
rise the formula indicates a greater local ability to fund the schools. Short-term rental
regulation should consider the long-term effects of housing availability, affordability,
property values, the permanent population, and the resources available to the public
schools.
Administrator’s Report:
Mrs. Amity Moler, County Administrator, informed the Board that early voting has started
and is located on the main level of the County Government Center.
Mrs. Moler noted that the Finance Office has received the Government Finance Officers
Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the tenth
consecutive year.
Mrs. Moler noted that the DMV Select served 441 citizens and took in $18,356.35 during
their opening week.
Supervisors Time:
The Supervisors thanked everyone for attending the meeting.
Adjourn: 10:17 p.m.
With no further business to discuss, Chairman Thomas adjourned the meeting.

________________________________
Clifton Thomas, Chairman At-Large

________________________________
Amity Moler, County Administrator

11