Work resumes on outbuilding law

Development of an accessory-building ordinance went on for most of 2016.

Before the Dec. 19 City Council meeting, Aldermen Frank Anderson and John Flynn met at City Hall to discuss what should be included in a proposed ordinance on accessory structures.

“We’ve been working at this one a year and I’m not sure we’re going to get it this time,” Anderson said.

After mulling over several ideas, Anderson and Flynn came up with what could be the bones of an ordinance.

The general requirements included a stipulation that accessory structures be behind the front plane of the house, based on which side of the building the front door is on, and that size be limited to 40 percent of the primary structure’s square footage.

The roof may be no higher than the primary structure’s roof under this potential proposal, measured against what Anderson described as an “imaginary plane,” which is to say that, even if the accessory structure stands on a lower or higher patch of land, it may not stand taller than the top of the roof of the primary structure

Additionally, accessory structures would be limited to one per lot, with an exception being made for boat houses and docks. A lot, Anderson said, could be permitted to have an accessory structure plus one boat house or dock.

“You want to let the guy build something,” Flynn said, “but if you let them build too big it looks like you just built a warehouse in a residential area.”

If the accessory structure is on an adjacent lot, Anderson said, it should be no closer to the road than the front door of the home, though it may be built to 50 percent of the primary structure’s size. Moreover, he said, only one adjacent lot should be able to have an accessory structure, though the main lot could as well.

“The pro behind that,” Anderson said, “is you wouldn’t end up with accessory structures spread out all over town

that didn’t belong to the property right next to them.”

This creates a challenge, Anderson said, because he would prefer that whoever owns the lots not be able to sell them separately after building an adjacent-lot structure, but combining the lots could cause issues with POA assessments. Making this work legally, he said, could be difficult.

Staff attorney Jason Kelley said it might not even be possible.

“Whenever we start saying things like ‘You can’t sell that lot,’ that’s a big problem for the government,” Kelley said.

On lots greater than 4

acres, Flynn said, the front plane rule should not apply, but existing setbacks should.

Anderson said that, on such a large lot, the maximum size of the accessory structure should not exceed that of the primary structure.

Another exception, Anderson said, could be in multifamily housing. This, he said, would allow the townhouse association to continue handling the garages and carports that get put up around townhouses.

Anderson also said that it might be worth requiring a permit for any structure as well. Under current rules, he said, a structure of 120 square feet or less does not

require a permit. But requiring one, he said, could make sure that it’s placed correctly.

“If you don’t require a permit and they put up a structure and you don’t like where they put it, what do you do about that?” Anderson pondered.

While it certainly isn’t a complete ordinance, the aldermen intend to present this set of ideas and, ultimately, try to figure out how much support they’ll get, before sitting down to hammer out a draft ordinance.

“I’m not sure whether this is one ordinance or several ordinances,” Anderson said.