Accessory housing proposal gets Boone council approval
By Frank Ruggiero
ruggiero@wataugademocrat.com

The Boone Town Council attempted to make housing more affordable by adopting language on accessory housing.

The council adopted a text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance from the Boone Affordable Housing Task Force to permit accessory housing, defined in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan as “a variety of housing forms, all of which are secondary to a primary residence but share the same site or structure,” such as garage apartments or mother-in-law apartments.

The council discussed the matter at its Thursday, Nov. 15, regular meeting. According to the comprehensive plan, accessory housing should be located near existing urban services to lighten the burden on the area’s infrastructure.

Though the Boone Area Planning Commission recommended approval, Boone Development Services director John Spear said commissioners expressed concern about a requirement that prohibited front yards from being converted to parking areas, but off-street parking had to instead be provided to the side of the structure.

“Generally, I think the objection of having parking in front of the residence was more of an appearance objection more than anything, but obviously having another driveway … would be a concern, as well,” Spear said.

Council member Janet Pepin asked if homeowners could rent both an accessory apartment and their house, and Spear said this particular land use requires owner occupancy. “The owner has to reside on the property,” he said.

Council member Dempsey Wilcox observed that there seemed to be little public interest in the matter, as the quarterly public hearing at which the case first appeared garnered few in attendance, with no one signing to speak on the matter.

Wilcox said he wouldn’t be surprised if occupancy complaints began to come in after the language was adopted, simply because residents didn’t know about the text amendment.

Noting that the planning commissioners wished to forward the parking issue to the Boone Area Planning Commission, Wilcox urged them not to do so. “If it’s a property that doesn’t have room for the parking … I don’t think it needs to have one of these accessory apartments put into it,” he said.
The amendment was adopted unanimously.

Sykes rezoning
On the other hand, the council denied a request from Joseph Sykes Jr., who requested to rezone property at 351 Hilltop Drive from residential/agricultural (RA) to multi-family residential (R-3).

According to the development services staff report, Sykes requested the rezoning to allow the construction of a second single-family home, which would be permitted in an R-3 zone.

At the public hearing, planning commissioner Gayle Turner asked why the property couldn’t be subdivided into two R-1 lots, and Spear said Sykes had originally requested that, but the property did not contain adequate lot width and street frontage.

Pepin was concerned that Sykes could eventually sell the property, opening it “to lots of different uses in R-3 than what he’s proposing in his plan.”

Concerned about a potential multi-family complex being built there, council member Rennie Brantz asked if such a use would be permitted. Spear said it would, though the size of Sykes’ property would “severely limit what you could put there.”

The application was denied in a 3-2 vote, with Wilcox and Pepin casting the dissenting votes.

“I know this was planned for a single family,” mayor pro tem Lynne Mason said. “If that’s the case, I hope the petitioner will consider doing a conditional zoning district … in which a single-family home could complement the area.”

Council member Bunk Spann echoed Mason’s sentiments, and suggested that Sykes pursue such an avenue in the future.

Appearance standards
The council unanimously approved a request from the Boone Community Appearance Commission (CAC) to amend various sections of the Commercial Development Appearance Standards to improve said standards and also cover parking structures.

The CAC found that improvements could be made in pedestrian orientation, in that building should be designed to support a safe pedestrian environment, with the primary façade and main entryway facing the primary public way.

Another suggested amendment would see buildings feature windows or displays on 10 percent of their ground-floor, street-facing sections.

Parking decks are also affected. According to a development services staff report, “The commission feels parking structures will be more of a staple in the community as land becomes less available. This newly proposed section for parking structures will address aesthetics through architectural features and also landscape screening.”

Rainwater harvesting
The council unanimously approved another request from the CAC, this one involving an amendment to require the screening of rain harvesting systems on commercially zoned properties.

“The commission felt that given this year’s drought situation and the possibility of increased system installations, they wanted to take a proactive approach and require screening of above ground systems,” the development services staff report reads.