Houston St. ADU for senior care approved

Image
  • Pat Chase (right) and Craig English examine a plan for an accessory dwelling unit at Monday night’s Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Staff photo by Todd Kleiboer
    Pat Chase (right) and Craig English examine a plan for an accessory dwelling unit at Monday night’s Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Staff photo by Todd Kleiboer
Subhead

Julian: Approval without ordinance premature

Body

Both the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) and the Zoning Board of Adjustments (ZBA) discussed the addition of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to a property on Houston Street at their meetings on Monday and Tuesday nights, respectively, and after much debate, approved the dwelling.

Citizen Larry Jordan applied for a special use permit for his residence at 1409 West Houston St. to add an approximately 400-square-foot “tiny home” to his 1.7 acre property, according to Community Development Director Tory Niewiadomski. According to Niewiadomski, Jordan also owns the property next door, for a total combined parcel acreage of approximately 2.6 acres.

Jordan told the boards that the tiny home on the property will house his elderly father—who at 91.5 years of age still wishes to have independent living.

However, according to Niewiadomski, there is currently no provision in city law which allows for ADUs. Although P&Z and Niewiadomski have recently been discussing crafting an ordinance to present to city council regarding allowing ADUs in some scope, such an ordinance would not be ready for several months, Niewiadomski stated.

The city sent out 12 letters to nearby property owners regarding the application for an ADU. They received two in favor of the ADU, who stated they thought it is great to allow a parent to live with their son. One respondee was undecided and wanted to know if the ADU would be rented out when Jordan’s father stopped living there.

One respondee was opposed on grounds that it will open the door for more ADUs and hurt property values.

“No! No!” wrote the neighbor. “They are... unsightly!”

“It’s going to be located about 350 feet off the road,” Niewiadomski stated. “We tried to drive by there to get a picture of where it would be, and you can’t even see back there for the trees.”

Despite those factors, Niewiadomski said staff recommended denial of the application based on the fact that it could “open up the door to more of these [ADUs].”

“What will be back there, it’s pasture,” Jordan stated. “He’d [Jordan’s father] like to sit on the front porch of the house and look at cows.”

Jordan told the board he had already purchased the tiny home for a cost of $36,000.

Board member Tommy Harrison inquired what Jordan would do if his father no longer occupied the house, and Jordan stated that when his father “went to be with the Lord, we will take the frame and sell it back to the place for $15,000. It certainly will not be rented out.”

“I love the idea. I’m not a big fan of nursing homes at all,” board member Chuck Sickles said. “I was excited to hear about the secondary dwellings on properties; it’s just genius. …I would rather my parents to be on the property with me.”

However, said Sickles, without specific building codes on ADUs, much is left to interpretation, and not in a good way.

However, to Harrison, the building would be permissible if it was “out of sight, out of mind.”

Board member Pat Chase suggested specific conditions under which the board could approve the structure: Once a year, the city should verify that Jordan’s father was living at the building, the structure is inspected by the city to include functional plumbing, and within one year of Jordan’s father vacating the building, the Jordan family removes the structure from the property.

With these conditions set, the board voted unanimously to approve the request.

The next evening, the application came before its final decision, the ZBA.

Board member James Litzler wanted to ask the city: If Jordan wanted to erect this structure on an empty lot, would city code allow it? Niewiadomski said no, it would not be allowed.

Furthermore, Litzler inquired, could Jordan not classify this structure as a mobile home, as it needed to be delivered to the property on wheels? Niewiadomski said no, as it did not satisfy most of the features necessitated for a mobile home.

“I don’t have a problem with it, as long as it’s temporary,” board member Kevin Mohl stated.

Board member Jay Julian, quoting the ordinance that tasks zoning boards with approving or rejecting variance requests, discussed with Jordan whether he believed this ADU fell under the scope of a “self-created hardship.” Had Jordan considered adding on to his home as a space for his father, Julian inquired?

Due to his father’s high level of independence, Jordan said no.

“He still drives, he loves to garden, and in fact, where it [the ADU] will be set down will be right facing the garden,” Jordan said. “He’ll have a porch and living room and kitchen, and it’s all complete.”

Hearing no further discussion, the board voted 4-1 to approve the request with the P&Z conditions in place. Julian voted against approving the request.

Julian stated to the News-Telegram that, on a personal level, he was in favor of ADUs, but with no ordinance in place, asking the ZBA to approve a request for an ADU was “putting the cart before the horse.”