Boone council

accessorizes

housing policy
By Frank Ruggiero
ruggiero@wataugademocrat.com

comment on this article

In other matters, the Boone Town Council was essentially forced to change its policy on accessory housing, which was originally adopted in hope of providing more affordable housing options for the community.

In November 2007, the council adopted a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) amendment to permit accessory housing, defined as a residence secondary to a primary residence but sharing the same site or structure, such as garage apartments or cottages.

The council initiated text amendments to its UDO to remove owner-occupancy provisions and prohibit use of accessory housing in R-1 (single-family residential) and R-1A (single-family residential, accessory) zoning districts, as a result of the N.C. Court of Appeals case of City of Wilmington v. Broadus E. Hill.

The court ruled that Wilmington’s zoning ordinance impermissibly regulates the ownership, rather than use, of the defendant’s property, holding that it was beyond the city’s power to regulate the manner of ownership.

In return, town attorney Sam Furgiuele advised the council that the town should no longer mandate owner occupancy for the single-family residence with accessory apartment land use, in order to comply with state law.

And because owner occupancy was considered paramount by the council for neighborhood preservation by limiting rentals from off-premise property owners, the table of permissible uses would be amended to prohibit accessory apartment land uses within the R-1 and R-1A districts.

The Boone Area Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment, provided the owner-occupancy provision be removed immediately upon council action and that the land use be prohibited immediately for R-1 zoning and effective July 14 for R-1A.

Council member Janet Pepin noted that the amendments, forced upon the town by the N.C. Court of Appeals, contradicted the goals of the Boone Comprehensive Plan. Council member Liz Aycock asked if R-1A zones should be rezoned, considering accessory apartments would be prohibited from the zone that was created for that particular use, and Furgiuele said it would be wiser to wait.

“At this point, it may be something the council would consider in the future,” he said. “It may be possible for the council … to conceive of other ways that might help control accessory apartments … without requiring owner occupancy, so I don’t think you should close the door on the possibility.”

Mayor pro tem Lynne Mason said she saw the amendment simply as the town keeping in compliance with the court’s ruling.

“The timing of this ruling was just really unfortunate in what we have in our text is illegal now,” she said.
“I’m real disappointed this is not an option, and we had safeguards in place to protect single-family neighborhoods.”

Noting that the move was not consistent with the objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan, the council unanimously agreed to adopt the amendment.