Town Planning Commission Reconsiders Auxiliary Dwelling Units and Reviews Agricultural and Residential Zones

The Town Planning Commission on Wednesday, October 1, at their monthly work session, took a microscopically focused look at auxiliary dwelling units as well as the agricultural and residential zones. It is the job of the commission to bring matters of land use into focus so that they can make intelligent recommendations to the Town Council, who ultimately render a verdict. With Commissioner Andrew Brooks absent, the commission had a quorum and proceeded to vet the evening’s business.

The Town Planning Commission sits for a work session on the evening of Wednesday, October 1. Royal Examiner Photo Credits: Brenden McHugh.

Because of substantive changes desired by the council, performance standards pertaining to ADUs were brought back before the commission for reconsideration. But first, what is an ADU? The proposed ordinance would define it thus: “A secondary, self-contained residential unit located on the same lot as a primary single-family dwelling. It includes independent living facilities such as a kitchen, bathroom, sleeping area, and separate entrance.” This stands in juxtaposition to an accessory building, which under the proposed ordinance would be characterized as a use incidental to that of the primary structure, with no residential occupancy permitted.

As living with family is a returning trend with college students coming home and aging relatives seeking an appealing alternative to nursing homes, the ADU offers a low-density solution to affordable housing that does not substantially change the character of the neighborhood. The proposed ordinance specifies in which residential zones it would be permitted by right and provides standards that locate the ADU on the same residential lot as a single-family detached dwelling, existing or proposed, with only one ADU permitted per residential lot, and the property must be owner-occupied.

In response to the council’s concern that some of the standards were too restrictive, especially relating to square footage requirements, staff made the necessary revisions and presented them to the commission on Wednesday evening. Under its current iteration, in the case that the ADU is internal, it shall not extend beyond the existing footprint of the primary structure, and in the case that it is detached, the footprint shall not exceed one thousand feet of residential space. In both cases, internal and external, a minimum of six hundred square feet is required, although there may be a situation, Deputy Zoning Administrator John Ware explained, such as a basement, internal to the footprint of the existing primary dwelling, that the owner wishes to convert into an ADU, where the square footage exceeds one thousand feet, and that is allowed.

In their review of the agricultural and residential districts, the bulk of the commission’s time was spent discussing performance standards pertaining to the farmer’s market use. Accompanying that segment of the discussion, staff brought to the commission’s attention what seems to be a discrepancy between separate sections of code allowing or disallowing the slaughtering of animals in urban agriculture. If it is allowed, what then are the standards? How far back would one need to be from the property line to kill a chicken? Allowing or disallowing the slaughter will need to be decided at some point in the future by the council.