rockville planning commission€¦ · web view26/09/2016 · karen lodinger was excused. town...

Rockville Planning CommissionWork Meeting

Rockville Community Center Town Hall

September 26, 2016

1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL – Chair Robert Ford called the work meeting to order at 10:10 a.m. The following members of the Rockville Planning Commission were present: Cheryl McGovern, Linda Brinkley and Jane Brennan. Karen Lodinger was excused. Town Clerk, Vicki S. Bell, recorded the meeting.

2. DISCUSS AND EVALUATE CURRENT INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DAVID CHURCH, ATTORNEY FOR THE UTAH LEAGUE OF TOWNS AND CITIES (ULTC) ON HOW TO PROCEED ON THE PROPOSED MULTIPLE-HOUSING ORDINANCE AS WELL AS OTHER RELATED ISSUES, E.G. “NON-HABITABLE” STRUCTURES SUCH AS SHEDS, BARNS, CARPORTS, ETC. – Chair Ford opened the discussion by stating that the issues to be discussed were included in one agenda item – one dealing with the multi-housing task force and, secondarily, issues that need to be clarified around non-habitable structures such as sheds, barns, carports, etc.

There has been some confusion among the commissioners as to which ones require permits and which don’t. Handouts had been provided relative to the adoption by ordinance of the International Building Code (IBC). The ordinance is for the adoption of the 2002 IBC, but also indicates “as well as any subsequent codes adopted by the State.” The one issue that still creates confusion is that there is an IBC for commercial and one for residential. There have been questions about how much square footage requires a building permit. We have heard 100 sq. ft., 120 sq. ft. and 200 sq. ft. The reason for the difference is the two different codes – IBC Residential Code and the IBC Commercial Code. There are documents on line, but does there need to be some clarification relative to the code being utilized. It would be helpful to have a handout at the office to provide information on what the definition is in the current IBC. Jane felt it would be helpful if the handout indicated what does not require a permit according to the IBC Residential Code R-105.2. Jane offered to create such an information handout.

Chair Ford stated that the commission needs to decide where they are going to go on the Multiple Housing Task Force (MHTF) – the rentals, accessory buildings, garages, etc. Questions posed to David Church (legal counsel for the Utah League of Cities and Towns) with his responses were provided to the commission for review prior to the meeting.

Chair Ford addressed specific comments Mr. Church made and gave his interpretation of the comments. One comment Mr. Church made was that we need to be careful that we don’t mix what is a legal requirement for issue vs. what is political. Chair Ford felt this is basic. The politics means: It is basically what we need to do so that people get along, live in harmony and we follow what our general vision for the Town is. That is a matter of a judgement call in many cases and even to a certain degree what to enforce, when you enforce it, and how much you enforce is all part of that political decision making. There were no objections to Chair Ford’s interpretation.

Another response from Mr. Church was that these are primarily zoning problems; we are a Town that is zoned residential and even if you allow, or regulate rentals within the footprint of a building, whether it be a garage, attic, separate room, or whatever, it is still residential so Mr. Church did not see it would be raising any red flags in terms of opening up other businesses because it fits within the residential mode. There were no objections to Chair Ford’s interpretation, but Cheryl commented the word single vs. multi is not.

Chair Ford responded that in his experience, when the term multiple occupancy or multiple dwelling units is utilized in land use zoning and mapping, the reference is usually for condos, apartments, duplexes, etc. and usually consists of multiple buildings. That is a separate land use code which we don’t have in our Town. We don’t have the zone, as far as he knows (maybe that is something to be

Rockville Planning Commission Work MeetingSeptember 26, 2016

clarified). We don’t have a zone category for multiple housing dwellings. It is still single-family, even if you have an accessory dwelling unit. It is still a single lot with a limited possibility of an accessory dwelling that is limited to a specific size and rooms. Mr. Church is saying that still fits the category of residential, single-family dwelling. There were no objections to Chair Ford’s interpretation. Chair Ford stated that’s an issue where maybe we’ve had some differences of opinion or need to clarify.

The third thing that was interesting to Chair Ford was that Mr. Church seemed to very strongly suggest that we shouldn’t do sun setting. Chair Ford indicated he has been uncomfortable with this since the beginning. Mr. Church felt it sets a bad precedent because if you let people in for a certain amount of time and then you change it, and then new people that come couldn’t do it; all we are doing is setting us up for bad feelings and bad enforcement. Linda felt that was interesting as it has been brought up many times and he has answered in number 14. Chair Ford felt Mr. Church had carefully brought to the fore some of the discomforts some of us were having about the issue.

Jane pointed out that was the main negative Mr. Church states and we need to be prepared to answer the question as to why the existing ones are okay but the newer ones are not, and she was not sure if we are prepared to answer that.

Chair Ford indicated that was one of the more fundamental issues that we need to decide because the whole issue of grandfathering-in, which Chair Ford has always been uncomfortable with. Someone says they have this structure or shed and it is in the wrong place per current code but they had it before. If it is was acceptable before but wrong now, why is it wrong? Is it wrong because of aesthetics, easements, it doesn’t fit the character of the Town? We need to say why it is wrong now, why isn’t it wrong enough to tell the people that had it before that was wrong to take their shed and move it. Linda clarified it was before we were a Town. If you are grandfathering in just because it was there before…Cheryl understood Chair Ford was using “grandfathering” in a general sense. This was wrong because it was illegal from the get-go, so we are grandfathering a thing that was illegal from day one…Chair Ford added that it wasn’t enforced ... Jane stated as opposed to Mike’s shed that was on the fence line from the year 1840…Chair Ford responded it would now have to be moved to meet the letter of the law.

Chair Ford knows there are two levels – one is specific to this MHTF issue, but the other is a broader issue. He felt that on both levels of concern, we need to say if you have a shed that is about to fall over and hurt somebody because it was built 100 years ago…Jane stated she knew we were using sheds as an example, but since that is off the topic, it is sort of confusing to her in what direction we are going. She requested they stick to houses because the multiple housing ordinance did state that if you have a house that’s built and then occupied, a secondary house, since before the Town was incorporated – 1985/1987, then that one is the only one that can be grandfathered in. That is like the shed from 1920.

Linda verified her understanding is you can’t have it grandfathered in because you have been allowed to do it all this time illegally. Chair Ford stated that isn’t the same thing and Jane stated that is what the ordinance was saying was someday…Cheryl stated she thought the grandfather clause was if it was legal…Linda stated that bothered her also and that is why Mr. Church’s response to question 14 was a definite page turner for her because that has been an issue and he has answered it legally.

Linda continued that the other one that was brought up with #10 was with what was going on with the State and she thinks as far as that goes if the State does make a law, it won’t make any difference what our ordinance says, we have to obey State law and we shouldn’t worry about it until it happens. Cheryl stated it does make a big deal what we do with our multi-family; if we don’t allow secondary dwellings now, when this passes there won’t be any secondary dwellings at least that people can rent out nightly. If we allow everyone to build a secondary residence on their property, every one of those will be able to rent nightly. If anyone has been following this closely, it is being pushed extremely hard and will most likely be passed. That is really the issue; what we do – we have to be thinking


about whatever we do that State law is going to change things – if you have one house and you want to rent it out every night and the State said it was okay, we can’t say anything; we have to allow it. If you have two properties and we allow people to have a secondary building that they rent out, we just allowed the entire town to have nightly rentals on every property, and still live in your home. Of all the stuff Mr. Church said, to her, that is the only two things we need to focus on and the Town needs to focus on and understand what we want to do. Do we want to allow everyone to have nightly rental apartments on their property, or no one is going to be allowed to have a nightly rental on their property, and that is the way we have to look at it. Linda stated it is a catch 22 on that one because if we don’t agree to do this, then those that have been doing it illegally will be the ones up front that will be able to take advantage of the State law, if it passes, and no one else will at that point. Cheryl stated unless we enforce it. Linda stated but it states right here that it doesn’t matter what we put in our ordinance, the State supersedes that. Jane said if you have one building, you are absolutely right. Then we only have one building that we need to control – one house per lot. Cheryl added and if they want to move out and rent their house nightly, we will have no say. The State will supersede our ordinance and that’s basically what…Chair Ford stated that because right now that law which you said that we have now, the 30 day limit which we do have now will be irrelevant. If the State allows this we don’t have to change anything. We had previously discussed going to 60 days and requiring people that rent actually show they stayed there for 30 days.

Chair Ford paraphrased what Mr. Church also said we don’t want to try to enforce more than we actually can enforce. In other words, that we get too specific about making sure that people actually…give us a lease agreement…all that stuff is really irrelevant. We decide what we want to regulate and whether they should have a business license or not is not really that relevant. It is basically we say they have the right to rent or they don’t have the right to rent. Cheryl stated they have the right to build another building to rent. Chair Ford added that it still fits the residential category of the zone unless we change our Land Use Code and land use zones for certain kinds of multi-rental buildings.

Linda thought we weren’t encouraging people or allowing them to build a second residence, separate from the footprint of their house. Chair Ford responded – not a second residence – an accessory dwelling unit is not a separate residence. What he is saying is it doesn’t change the character of the single family residential land use code. You can have the main family house and an accessory dwelling unit that still fits within the residential definition. Jane asked for clarification of Linda’s statement –same footprint or not. Chair Ford answered no, even if it is not in the same footprint, if it is an accessory limited to 400 sq. ft., limited to one bedroom that still fits within the general codes of single-family dwelling Land Use Code. Linda asked if someone built a garage, that’s not something they can rent out. Chair Ford felt Mr. Church is saying you can.

Cheryl stated that is what the issue is. Chair Ford agreed that is the issue because it doesn’t change the basic residential code of what we are as a Town. Cheryl added except there is a difference between a single-family and a multi-family. Chair Ford stated an accessory dwelling unit is not a duplicate of the primary dwelling, and accessory/secondary is still part of the use of that lot. If you have a mother-in-law apartment, or you call it a casita, or you call it a cabin or studio and it is separated more than 30’, then we define…Cheryl posed a hypothetical situation. When we were talking about mother-in-law apartments; people building an apartment. They are allowed a 4000 sq. ft. footing for their primary residence. If they were to build a mother-in-law apartment that was attached, and if we were to say okay, let’s allow this, and anybody who wants to attach a mother-in-law apartment, as long it’s within the 4000 sq. ft. ….Chair Ford added and is within the 30ꞌ…Cheryl continued as far as she knows that still doesn’t address most of the apartments that are being rented. She doesn’t think any of them are attached to the primary footing. There are a couple and that puts us back to the issue. Jane gave the example of people living in chicken coops or barns that are far away from the main building, more than 30ꞌ, because we have said up to 30ꞌ; it can still be attached by a sidewalk, cover, etc. Cheryl hasn’t seen list so she has no idea who is renting illegally and no one has come to me… Jane indicated you can drive through town … Cheryl is trying to make a point here.


As far as she is concerned, nobody is renting illegally in this town as no one has informed her they are. Linda indicated Sharon says she has a list. Cheryl hasn’t seen it and doesn’t know if she wants to. The point she is trying to make is that none of us are not enforcing this ordinance because none of us are aware of any specific…Jane confessed that she is aware, and Linda said she is also aware.

Chair Ford said the question is for Jane and Linda as to what do we do about it. He thinks part of the issue is you can get very intrusive about saying that you have to require every person living in town to come forward and confess that they are actually renting or to prove that they are actually renting. If they tell you well, it is just a family member and they are just helping me with my rent or mortgage, how do you deal with that? Jane stated because a family member can’t live in the chicken coop that is not attached that used to be a chicken coop in the back yard. A family member can’t live in the apartment that is above the garage. A family member, even that is against the rules, family member or not.

Linda brought up the comment by a citizen in the audience previously that he may need a ranch hand, etc. The answer that was given was that when they build their house to add on enough square footage to have a place for them to stay in your house, not to build a second ….Chair Ford stated but that only solves the new problems. He thinks for the new problems we can take care of that. Linda asked how to get rid of the ones already rented.

Chair Ford thinks the problem is the old ones; the ones that were either grandfathered in or…Cheryl added or they haven’t been grandfathered in. Chair Ford stated that they haven’t been grandfathered in but they have been going on for several years. Jane stated to keep in mind they have been going on since 2006 with the last census because this has been worked on all this time. It’s not like we have been ignoring for the last six or ten years. It has been in the works and it keeps hitting brick walls like we are letting it hit right now. We have to do something; there has to be a time we say okay we are going to change the General Plan and the Land Use Code and we are going to allow it or we are going to keep everything in place and we are going to enforce it (good luck), or we have to temporarily enforce it. We have to make a decision on what is going to…Cheryl asked to go back to the two things that were said – either going to allow it and take a chance of the State saying that you can rent out nightly and we don’t have a say, or we don’t allow it. She doesn’t think there is a middle. We either are going to allow secondary rentals or not. Chair Ford stated it seems to him the temporary, sunset period, from what Mr. Church is saying is a bad idea; it is not viable. All it does is set us up for new people that come in after we end the sunset.

Jane gave the example that I want to have a B&B in my house and I am not legally allowed to. How is that any different? We have five allowed B&B’s and I am not one of them. The rules were different for them and not for me, and I want them changed. Chair Ford felt that was a fundamental argument and that is what he means by grandfathering.

Cheryl agreed and it really isn’t all or nothing; either we change it to allow everyone, or no one.

Jane responded that she is saying the opposite to that. She thinks it is okay that the things that are in place now that she is not allowed to do. I am not allowed to take my dog in the National Park, I am not allowed to base jump off Kinesava. Those things are okay with her; rules are okay with her.

Cheryl stated that Jane is just one person. Jane responded that the rules apply to everyone. Cheryl indicated but it is the whole Town that we are here for.

It appears to Chair Ford that the way it is developed, and this is human nature. Jane stated that if you don’t want to live by the rules that are in this Town, the General Code and the Land Use Code, there’s a lot of wilderness. You drove through the Town and saw the sign Welcome to Rockville and you know you are in Town; this is not a surprise to anyone.

Chair Ford presented his analysis: we live in a small town where most people, up to now; particularly up to 15 to 20 years ago either were very closely related or knew each other, farmed together, went to church together, etc. Now we are in a transition period that this is happening to a lot of small towns


all across the west. We have a lot of newcomers coming in, the older people are retired or their kids go elsewhere, they can’t come to live here because they can’t afford the land prices. So, we are seeing a change. There are more people here now that don’t have any close cultural or family ties to the old way of doing things. The lack of enforcement that maybe has happened, during a time, the time when people really did know each other much more closely and were related, and so we go to church together, this is my brother-in-law, this is my nephew and he is staying here for a while and so it is easier to not enforce things to just get along. And, you don’t want to hurt people’s feelings – you know each other. That is one way, and actually in most towns and in most situations – legally you could call this prosecutorial discretion. You have rules but unless someone complains and claims it is a really a problem of safety and things like that – you have it on the books, but you don’t do anything about it unless you need to. If you need to, it is on the books, and Chair Ford feels that is kind of what was happening. But, if you carry that too far, and particularly when the Town is changing and there are newcomers coming in that don’t understand why certain people are being able to do things and others not, it sets a bad dynamic for enforcement and a lot of us are new on the commission, we are not as well-known in the community – unless you have been here 25 years, you are still an outsider. Some of us were born here but are still an outsider. We are dealing with new dynamics and he thinks we have to think about what do we do in this current situation. He finds himself somewhat at a quandary. Cheryl stated that is why she is seeing a lack of light here. We are either going to do it or not; there really isn’t a middle.

Jane indicates she totally agrees with black and white; she is super black and white, if you haven’t noticed. But, she thinks it is more than that. Either we enforce what we have in place in the code right now, or we have to change the code; not just ignoring it as we are now.

Cheryl stated that either we are going to allow anyone who wants to do this do it or no one – that is black and white.

Jane asked what are the problems of allowing just say everybody here from now on can have a casita, you can build a new casita, you can only have one and complying with the limitations/requirements in place. What are the problems with that?

Cheryl indicated the only one she brought up; if the State allows for nightly rentals – now you have the potential of two nightly rental properties on every property in town. Chair Ford added that you could have an accessory building unit and something like your garage, your attic, or room, or whatever. Jane added but we won’t be able to control that and we won’t be able to control that for the one Air B&B in our neighborhood. The primary thing she sees is the water usage. Chair Ford responded that was not necessarily the case. To him, the water issue – you still are saying that there is one culinary share of water per each zoned residential parcel, and that is the water company’s business to manage how the water is used. If people start using more water than they can actually provide, they have to either drill more wells or they have to manage it. To him that is a non-issue.

Cheryl stated they haven’t done it out my way yet, but don’t know if they have done it with everyone in Town, but every once in a while they send someone out to see if you are using your full share of water, and if you are not, they argue that they can take it away. Cheryl clarified this is for potable water. For instance if you have a ½ acre potable water and you just use it your house and you have only two people living in it, then you are not using that water allotment, so they look and if you have a 20 x 20 little area with trees and grass, and you are using your potable water for that, that counts. Technically, that is why the water company came forward and said that is really not an issue and that is when the Town actually fessed up that they used it as an issue so people didn’t put in secondary buildings with plumbing.

Jane stated that if she is limited to 5,000 gallons a month for potable water and she is a good steward and only uses 500 gallons, someone is going to tell me that I have to use more? Cheryl responded yes. Jane thinks those people are crazy. Cheryl responded that they are just making sure that..they are


trying to figure out where there is in any… Jane asked if they are going to take away my 4,500 gallons?

Chair Ford stated it was not used initially, but it is part of the water rights that are assessed by the Division of Water Rights to the Town, to the water companies. Cheryl added they really want to make sure you are not using more that you should, but if you are using less, that is also a problem.

Linda stated what we have had up until now is what you just said – if you are using more (and we know who uses more of our drinking water) to do whatever with and the only thing that the water company who handles the culinary water has been able to do is pass different rules; after so much, they charge you more. Those with a lot of money could care less. The other ones where you use it or lose it, is the ditch water. They can come in and they go overhead, they look at the green (they did this years ago) and then if you are not using it, yes, they can take it away. Linda didn’t know if they could take part of your culinary share. Cheryl stated that Mark Schraut came out to the ranch a couple years back and they were actually (she is unsure if it was when Todd was building, or what), using him as he is a surveyor. He wasn’t assessing Cheryl’s property but she asked him “so when they come out to assess me” and that is when Mark Schraut told her she has to show that she is using all of her water. Chair Ford confirmed that this is subterranean water – a well. That is separate from the culinary water system that serves most of the Town. He said the same thing – you have to demonstrate that you are using it.

Cheryl indicated most people are not using the amount of water, so that is really why it is not an issue of having that …Jane stated it might not be an issue for well water, there are people wanting to build that can’t get a culinary – there are people on a waiting list for culinary water and we don’t have enough shares of culinary water to let them build a home. And if we do that, I know it’s not us, but it is hand in hand with us.

Chair Ford stated that the solution to it is for the water company to drill. They can easily drill some more wells because there is a lot of water available for towns because the Division of Water Rights does...so he doesn’t think the water issue is a legitimate issue. Jane feels it is absolutely legitimate because there are people on the waiting list in Rockville that cannot build a home because they cannot get a culinary water share, and we would be going in the back door saying you can’t build a home Mr. Jones, but Mr. Smith, you can build a casita and rent it out and have a second home on your lot.

Chair Ford stated no, that doesn’t follow because you only have the culinary unit that goes with the lot. One water unit, culinary, to one area.

Jane stated that what she would like to see then is maybe we can figure out a way for the Pipeline Company to be a little more hand-in-hand with us on this and say your limits of your usage may be lower than 5,000 gal. and the fee for going over this limit is a lot more expensive. Except in the event of a one-time usage, or something like that, if it happens twice, if you’re watering your giant field with culinary water…Chair Ford stated that is supposed to be illegal already…Jane asked by who? Chair Ford responded it is the water company. Jane responded that they say it is illegal but there is no way they can enforce it other than to say don’t do it. Chair Ford stated there are ways of enforcing it; other towns do it. Jane stated the way they enforce it is by water metering and charge enough, but obviously they don’t charge enough because these people can still do it. Chair Ford stated hat’s a management problem by the water company and it’s not a problem that there is a [inaudible] cap on available water. They can always drill another well, with more money that it would earn from actually having people actually pay for that amount of water.

Linda stated that part of this problem is we have been supposedly hand-n-hand with the water company for a lot of years and now when things come push to shove and legal things enter into it, the water company has backed off. It is their thing, so we can’t use it to say it isn’t, but they need to be responsible for their own management of that stuff.


Sharon Hatfield spoke from the audience and gave information that unless it has changed since she was on the commission, the Pipeline Company bylaws say that they would have one water share per parcel and they also said they would not put water to a secondary building on the property, whether it be a barn or a residence. So unless they have changed, that’s their policy. Cheryl indicated that someone has stated they would allow it for this sunset thing. Chair Ford thinks that is part of the problem – it is okay during that period and for those that are already doing it illegally and then if we close it up again later, then that sets up this situation where newcomers that come are being treated unfairly. Linda thinks you will find the water company backed off on that for that very reason. Cheryl asked how does what we do today, now, with the water company. That is their issue. Why are we bringing them into this; we don’t have any say over water.

Comment from Tydon Oler in the audience stating the Town has no say over the water would be very incorrect. The Town owns 33%....Linda stated that is still not a controlling amount. Rockville Town owns 33% or 35%….The actual application in 1927 was put forth that the water was for the inhabitants of the Town, it was not for the private water company as a private individual of the Town and also the state lists Rockville Pipeline Company as a public water company and it lists the State and the Town and Rockville Pipeline Company as the owners of that public municipality. Chair Ford stated that was a very important point, because what that says, and this is an issue a lot of towns have had to eventually confront, in most towns the water is run by the municipality not by a private company. Precisely because the reason for that water is to service the inhabitants of the neighborhood; we actually own and up to now there hasn’t been very much involvement by the Town with the water company. Eventually, a lot of towns get to the point that they have to put out or do whatever is necessary take over and then you run it under one – whether it be sewer, garbage, electricity, etc. and we may be approaching that situation where it (survey indications) is an [inaudible] situation because it can be used as an excuse for not doing anything but yet we are responsible for the health and safety of the community. Water is one of the most important ingredients for health and safety. And if we have no say on it either they are not expanding for the need that is legitimate for people that live here including people that don’t have a water unit that should be able to have one, then we should have an input on that in saying okay you guys need to drill another well and get enough water, you need to manage the water you have better, and we should have a say in that, it seems to Bob.

Mr. Oler stated he drilled a well on his property exactly for this very reason and he gets 67 gpm of good culinary water from that well. That is more than Rockville can pump from its five wells and that was with one 6” well. There are wells that have been drilled within the last three to four years in this Town that actually get 900 gpm. Jane asked how far did you have to drill. Oler stated they hit water at 15’ and of course we went down into the Moenkope layer…Chair Ford indicated that is better quality water. The Moenkope was at 30ꞌ but we still went to 110 or 200. Chair Ford indicated it was the same with his well and Jane stated that was right on the river level. Oler stated if the Town wants to solve its water problem, they could tomorrow and they could do it in two ways – they could follow Washington County Conservancy District’s advice that they gave in 2005 which was to drill wells lower near the Virgin River Drainage, or they could lease shares of their culinary. In fact, the WCCD has a write-up history of the Rockville Town’s water system and in that specifically they say that the Town of Springdale has committed with the WCCD and other people to provide water for Rockville in excess of Rockville’s willing to do that. It might take a person saying they have three shares of irrigation water and I am willing to lease them, or trade them or whatever. I’m just saying…Bob stated it’s a solvable problem. Oler indicated it’s a solvable issue because it wouldn’t be that hard. Linda referenced Jane’s remark that regardless of what we are saying could happen, what has happened and is continuing to go on is that the water company has had this waiting list for over 15 years and they have not moved on that list. They could do all this stuff but they have not.

Mr. Oler stated he would build a well on his property.


Chair Ford indicated that when he was getting ready to build, approximately 20 years ago, and at the time there was one culinary share but it was going to be really hard to get it and he wanted to be self-sufficient so he went to the trouble and bought shares for his well. He got similar quality and amounts of water very easily. It took 1–½ years to get it all taken care of. At the time, he offered the Town that he would give the Town or share with the Town my ground water resource right if you will let me hook up to your pipeline, and they were not interested. It was because it was being used as a way of keeping outsiders out. He was told that and I didn’t want to push it and I said okay I will build my own well and I have been happy with that. Linda commented that nicer words would be to control development. Chair Ford added that whether that was correct or not, that was the message he got.

Sharon Hatfield indicated she does not believe that is correct. You have all read the General Plan and in it some of the decisions were made about building and the size of the community and so forth. The zoning was based on the fact that those writing the plan recognized that this was a Town that had chosen no commercial, and because it has no commercial, we don’t have much money so we are only able to provide infrastructure for so many residents. Houses cost the Town money. People don’t realize that, but they do. The only thing that fills the Town revenue is commercial and this Town has decided not to have it. Therefore, in order to live within our means the founding folks that originally worked on the General Plan, decisions were made relative to zoning all those big 20 acre lots out there because it was recognized the Town, given its economic sustainability could not provide for a huge number of residences. It was understood from the beginning that we were limited if we were going to continue to choose no commercial. It was not about keeping people out, it was more a matter of what was possible in terms of what the people of this community said they wanted, and they said they wanted no commercial. Cheryl asked Sharon, since we are on the subject of water and Sharon was on the Planning Commission, when the Town of Springdale updated their water system and they offered to revamp the entire system in the Town of Rockville and put in new hydrants, why did the town say no? Because they were going to raise the water prices 15 cents, or something. Sharon was not aware of that situation. Chair Ford supposed that was made as an offer but the Town was…..Cheryl stated the Town said no because they didn’t want their water bill to go up. Sharon Hatfield was not aware of that and thinks lots of times we hear things, she’s not saying that’s not the case, she’s only saying that was news to her. She has never, ever heard such a thing.

Chair Ford commented that the water engineer that did the study that was presented at the forum did point out that if we signed up with the Springdale company, that the water rates would go up and they actually showed the changes, but … Cheryl added they were going to do it for free for us. Chair Ford added that they said it would take care of both the pressure in the lines for the fire hydrant issues and it would take care of the issue in terms of being able to handle growth. It would still be limited in terms of the growth in terms of the number of buildable parcels in Town; all of that is up to the Town to control, but in terms of reducing the occasional and now more frequent summer problems where the thing goes dry and then they have to buy water, that that would actually solve that problem but it would be at a price of increasing rates or changing, etc. and it would have to come under one general organization run by the Town instead of by a company. Sharon could see where that would be an issue, but all she was saying was it was news to her. Cheryl was just looking for an answer to her question.

Chair Ford stated that regardless of what people heard, said, or whatever, the fact is that water has been used, whether correctly or not, as an issue and there is a problem with people that have wanted culinary rights for years and whether that is a problem that the Town should solve or whether it is the citizens should work on the pipeline company to help them to solve it. He doesn’t know how to deal with that. That affects the multiple housing as well.

Cheryl asked that if we have 33% ownership, then what separates them from water shares and how many are we using, and so how many can we, bypassing the water company, give out or sell? Linda


responded that those are questions for the water board; it is their issue. Cheryl responded but [inaudible] what we are doing, correct?

Jane indicated that one thing about water is we’re very careful not to grandfather something in and we’re trying to be very careful not allow somebody who’s been breaking the rules to have a benefit. She feels that way about the water. Basically, we’re circumventing what has become a hassle, although traditional, this fifteen year list has been a hassle for these people, a terrible inconvenience that they cannot even build here and we are just jumping right over that without –she doesn’t want to be willy nilly about whether it is our responsibility or not, we are helping them …Chair Ford stated perpetuating that. It’s really an unfairness to them because they have land that is technically buildable but they can’t because they can’t get the water right or they jack the price up so high by the culinary water that it becomes prohibitive or it’s unfair and that same kind of unfairness spills over into other things.

Cheryl stated then we are right back to the same two things – either we’re going to pass an ordinance that allows people to have secondary dwellings, or we’re not, and if you want to use it as a water issue, then it sounds to her like we’re not, and then it brings us to then what do we do.

Chair Ford stated that one way you could deal with it is to say to be fair, we say everybody can build. They have to maintain one parcel, single-family dwelling with allowable 30 feet or even an accessory dwelling that is limited to 400 sq. ft., etc. If you allow that and then people either build an additional or put or have water into those units, it’s going to raise the water demand a certain amount. That’s going to put pressure on the water company to dig a well, or whatever they need to meet that demand. That would be one way and make them face it. Or, the Town could say if you aren’t willing to do what’s necessary to meet that demand, because the demand is there – 15 people with parcels that want to build, etc. and they haven’t met their demand, the Town could say okay, we’ll take over the water and then we manage it and then we make sure everybody is treated fairly and equally. Or, we could say that we’re going to leave it exactly the way it is, let people do whatever they’re doing but it legally you can’t build an accessory dwelling, you can’t put water to your barn, you can’t put water into your garage even if it’s just for a hobby or whatever, go along with the fiction that we just blind eye to what’s actually what is going on and it creates this whole situation of that nothing is really being resolved.

Jane stated that aside from the water, which it’s really not our responsibility and I’m not sure that legally we can rely on that for our decision making, which is a shame because it’s kind of important. We can allow it or we can ignore it. What harm, really, in these homes that have apartments or have casitas or have people living in the barn. So far, what harm has it caused us.

Cheryl responded that she guesses the question is that obviously it is causing someone harm or they wouldn’t have spent ten years working on…Jane stated the people that it caused harm to are the people that came and said “I want to build (obtain a permit)”. They wanted to follow the rules and do things correctly and then they weren’t allowed. Chair Ford added that these are the new people that are primarily moving in or people that are really conscientious and want to follow the rules.

Cheryl asked that since everyone appears to be aware of the 20 or something, are people renting them under the guise that the whole reason why we are considering this is like their renting them out monthly to people who are in dire need of a place to live, or are they being nightly rentals, or weekly rentals or? Chair Ford replied that it is probably all of the above.

Linda stated she feels it is more the ones that everybody knows about what has been going on way back into the 90’s, has been people who live there as a monthly rental, there aren’t that many that are overnight; they just have places they can rent out like an apartment.

Cheryl commented that people that have transient rentals cause a lot more attention. If there is an Air B&B in town, it hasn’t been brought to our attention with lots of activity – there is a different car every night, they are here to have a party, etc. That hasn’t come to our attention that she knows of.


Clerk Vicki Bell stated that we did have once instance and we contacted the property manager and had them explain to her they couldn’t do nightly rentals. Jane asked who made the first complaint, a neighbor? Vicki indicated that was the case.

Linda stated she thought if you talk to water people, she is not saying all of them, but there has always been a few select really wealthy people that didn’t care how much extra their penalties were or how much water they used. A lot of the ones, if you have a bunch of rentals, they just don’t care how much water they use. So if you talk to the people that do billing and handle the water use over the years, you will find out that some of those places, because they just don’t care because they don’t own the property.

Cheryl stated that if we’re talking about water with this then that brings up an issue for the people on the south side of the river that don’t use the water and it’s like well, that shouldn’t be an issue; we don’t use the pipeline water; we have a well and we have shares so why can’t we put a rental property; we have the water. Bob indicated that’s was a very good point. Cheryl stated that if it comes down to water, it’s not a very good argument because there are people that have rights to culinary water and could build hotels. That can’t be a reason because it can be argued.

Chair Ford commented that unless the State – like what has happened in Virgin. When Virgin bought into the Washington County Water Conservancy District (WCWCD), one of their conditions was that the Town could no longer allow well rights in the Town of Virgin. Their water has been turned over to the WCWCD, to the District now controls it. In Rockville, people can still buy water shares.

Cheryl added that is exactly what she was saying – they actually send someone out to see if you’re using your water – it is not like people can hold on to their water and not use it.

Linda addressed Cheryl’s statement, based on Linda’s knowledge – A lot of the shares that are floating out there, that people can demand huge prices for; those were grandfathered in by people from years ago who owned them. In later years, if you were on the list and got a share, you had a time limit to utilize the water. So those shares are out there from awhile back. Chair Ford added that the price has been going up for those shares. Linda responded there hasn’t been a thing on those old ones. Oler? – The last one sold for $40,000.

Chair Ford stated that when he first came here 20 years ago, he was told it was going to be about $5,000 and he figured it was cheaper to drill a well. When asked if it was (Cheryl or Linda?) he replied he has better quality water and as much as he needs. He doesn’t have to worry so he thinks that it was a good investment. He was willing at the time to..because he was to say that he could turn it over to the town, they would have his water share and then use it in the system and let him have a free culinary water because it goes by right in front of his house.

In terms of the total amount of acre feet, from what Chair Ford understands from the Division of Water Rights, the town could legitimately go, because there are still water shares available in this water shed that you can either bring them in from elsewhere just like us do, so the town could go and buy in this aquifer which is along the river the limits that are… the first aquifer is up on the mountain. That is the one that is not producing enough water and that’s the one there is a fine-line limit to what that one can do. But if you say we’re only going to use that, then you have a problem. If you say you can buy a water share or two for more wells; either Springdale get it or we buy it and then we supplement our own water. It’s not that hard to put a filter on it so the water goes into an … and would actually solve another problem, which was the high radium that they’ve been having. If we use the groundwater that’s down here that doesn’t have that problem because it’s a different geological area, mix it with the water that comes from up there we solve that problem.

The Clerk advised that they needed to stay on topic. Chair Ford responded that those issues have been used as the rationale as to why we can’t rent, or we can’t do this or that and the other.

Cheryl agreed that is kind of off topic but when you start putting our well water into the pipeline you have a new issue because you can’t drink…Chair Ford – No you have to clean it and put in a filter…


Cheryl indicated the cost of the system would be a nightmare. Chair Ford responded yes, but it is solvable.

Chair Ford asked where do we go, what do we do here? Do we set up another task force to come up with another decision?

Cheryl stated we don’t need another task force, we just need to..let’s bring up the survey one more time. The survey said the town was interested in being able to rent. Jane added in the footprint. Linda stated no secondary dwellings.

Cheryl stated if we decide…and this is something she was saying before, if people want to put a mother-in-law apartment in their 4,000 sq. ft. footing, they should be able to, if they’re living in their home, technically.

Jane indicated there are differences and asked Cheryl if she meant and share common space. Cheryl responded in the negative, but they are technically living in their home because the walls are shared, you can hear them living their lives. Chair Ford added as long as it is within 30ꞌ and connected by an arcade or something; that is technically still in the footprint.

Cheryl stated that she now understands where the argument was about a 30ꞌ being attached. That is still not attached because it also states that there is a common wall. Chair Ford added that you can extend the foundation for 30ꞌ with an arcade or something over it, and then technically it’s attached.

Cheryl added that it can’t have two open walls and Jane disagreed as our definition of footprint – it has to be two of three things – a common foundation, a common roofline, or a common wall.

Cheryl stated it can’t have a roofline if it has two openings.

Jane read the definition of building attached – a building connected by any two of the following – a common wall, a continuous wall, a continuous foundation, or a continuous roofline. So, that can be a breezeway, as long as it shares the entire foundation, not a walkway or sidewalk, but part of the foundation.

Linda indicated that we already have a limit of 4,000 sq. ft. on the footprint, so by renting out part of your house, or like her mother lives in part of her house that is way under the 4,000 sq. ft. It’s not like you’ve got your house here and then another and then you end up with two substantial pieces of property and using one water share. Jane totally agreed.

Cheryl indicated the next line read that walls or fences, patios, porches and terraces or other roof accessories used open on at least two sides shall not constitute an attached building. You can have two of the three things, but you can’t have an opening on two sides. You can’t have a breezeway for it to be considered attached.

Linda commented to Chair Ford about the discussion of things that have changed from what we had originally. Some things were allowed to be passed and occurred and we awarded them a permit, and then the powers that be that were on the committee then didn’t like it so they added some of these little things that changed it.

Chair Ford responded which means there are some mutually exclusive or compounding principles.

Linda continued that after certain people did it and certain people that were on the committee, then it gets changed for the small piece to be added to what we had before. Now, it reads like that and the answer is why?

Chair Ford stated that issue there, to him, is a little confusing. Cheryl added conflicting.

Chair Ford stated the additional thing was added…Cheryl – because people built a breezeway…over-talking 8:20


Chair Ford stated it technically met the definition but it was inconsistent with and earlier…Jane – The first part of that definition is wrong or the second part of that definition is wrong, but they can’t be both right. Chair Ford stated they kind of cancel each other out. Linda indicated the second part is the newer part.

Chair Ford gave an example: If I have 2500 sq. ft., and I do a breezeway, and it has a little cover to it and 30ꞌ feet away I build another 400 sq. ft. or 500 sq. ft. studio, I am technically within it.

Cheryl stated but not by the second one, which was written later in 2002, when after the first one it was like “Ohh”.

Jane stated she wished they had read the whole thing before they changed it.

Linda indicated that it can still be changed but needs to go through the proper notification, etc.

Chair Ford stated that if we clarify the footprint with an attachment and then we say we stick with the two out of the three of common foundation and/or a breezeway…Jane – we say we clarify what an attached building is to what we think they meant it to be. Chair Ford continued that would really help and would take care of a lot of the new people that want to come in and say, “Look, we want one parcel, one single-family dwelling – a single-family dwelling can include an attachment if it follows these rules.” If we stick with that, he thinks most people will be happy.

Cheryl stated that you can’t allow a breezeway. Otherwise, it’s really not attached, the way it reads now. We can deal with that and get it on an agenda.

Linda stated that we keep talking about our vision statement in the general plan, and this was brought up about three meetings ago, doesn’t mean some of that can’t change, but she thinks what it is saying is the pastoral, single-family type dwelling is what people like. If you want to erase the part that some people don’t want to see development, that’s up to you, or what people gossip about. By doing it that way, you keep that single-family dwelling look instead of allowing people to have more dwellings and all of a sudden the town has exploded into development. Chair Ford added that then new people that come in just have to design their houses and permits to fit that pattern.

Chair Ford indicated that we still have the problem of the ones either that were grandfathered in or were allowed later buildings that are truly accessory buildings, but they are too far away, they are more than 30ꞌ away, they’re not connected, and maybe they have water or don’t have water and electricity.

Jane stated that traditionally, they were used for something other than a residence and then they were converted to a residence.

Linda stated she was up for spankings for the people that have been varying from the rules.

Linda stated that this is where we are, here, and what are we going to do about this? Chair Ford responded that he didn’t know how many of those are really a problem. Cheryl responded that they’re all a problem because many are illegal.

Jane thought we are all in agreement that the survey said that we can allow mother-in-law apartments; however, she wanted to clarify that you can’t call it a mother-in-law apartment, because mother-in-law apartments with a relative are already legal in our land use code. We want stranger apartments in an attached footprint. Linda added in the footprint of your home.

Chair Ford stated that that would be an attic, a basement, a garage or an attachment that is within 30ꞌ attached to…Cheryl – Then how do we define…Linda – A lot of those ones she is aware of have them in the footprint. Some are separate, but there is quite a few of them that are that people, when they lose a spouse, or when the kids move away and they have…Cheryl – It’s not about we’re not supposed to bring in that, because….Linda – She was just saying this is what can happen.


Jane stated that the good thing about this, she is aware of less of those than she is aware of the additional building ones – let’s call them chicken coops – because those are not noticeable. What we’re doing here will not impact the visibility of the town, it will still…Linda – in reference to what our vision statement is about what we want – You can’t see it, it looks the same as it did before.

Cheryl added that we then have to understand if the state changes the law it is out of our hands, if they rent them nightly. If they end up renting them nightly, or whatever, they’re in their homes, technically. They’re sharing a wall, if somebody wants to rent their room out every night to a stranger.

Jane referenced the additional buildings, and enforcing that. If we want to enforce the rules that we have that you cannot have an additional building…Chair Ford or water and electricity to an additional building…Jane continued that she thinks part of it is, either it has been going on so long, nobody said anything, or people just assume that it’s okay. Because, the way people talk about it when she says nice to meet you and where do you live, the answer is: “Oh, I’m renting that secondary barn that used to be a chicken coop over on that side of town, or up under the hills, etc.” “Okay, you know I’m on the Planning Commission, right?” She thinks people don’t know that it’s not okay. Education is a big deal before we start to say “here’s your citation.”

Chair Ford asked if she was saying that we should keep it and enforce it? What do you do – tell the people to tear the building down? Jane responded that she wasn’t making that decision. Cheryl stated that they don’t have to tear their buildings down.

Chair Ford responded but, if you just leave it there with no water, no electricity, and it is basically just a storage shed – it’s just a glorified shed.

Jane indicated that’s what her little house is.

Chair Ford was just saying we have to decide what it is and let people know it’s something that can only be a shed. Then they have another problem of which he was informed a couple of days ago, potentially a business up in Springdale who wants to rent an enclosed garage down here to store equipment in because they ran out of space up in Springdale to store their equipment. Is that a local business, or are they just storing equipment in a friendly neighbor’s house?

In answer to Cheryl’s question, Chair Ford stated it was electrical equipment and Clerk Vicki Bell clarified it was an electric car.

Chair Ford stated that then we are back to the rules where we say you can’t have water or electricity to some of those…Jane – but if I wanted to rent out my garage that doesn’t have water or electricity, I’m allowed to, correct? Chair Ford responded not according to the rules.

In response to Jane’s question as to which rules, Chair Ford read from the code: An accessory building shall not have any plumbing and shall not be a separate living facility. Jane indicated that doesn’t say she can’t rent out her garage.

Chair Ford remembered being told very explicitly when he got his building permit that he couldn’t put water into his garage.

Jane stated that if she has a garage with no water or electricity, can she rent it to someone that wants to store their tractor there? The general answer from the commission was yes.

Chair Ford was talking about renting it as a living quarters; that answer would be no.

Chair Ford indicated that is when you get into business license issues, etc. For instance, if you have a business elsewhere and you park your vehicles and some of your equipment at your house, is that opening us up for business license infringement?

Cheryl stated that goes back to the shuttle service that we just okayed. It says Two Crane Shuttle right on it and they park it out towards the front. It’s not going to be on the road. Jane responded that


actually, they can’t park it out towards the front. Under Chapter 8 there is something specific to vehicular signs.

Cheryl stated that so, it is a non-issue. When we receive complaints, then there would be a problem.

Chair Ford reported he has had a complaint on another related building that has a business license, actually two of them that have logos and telephone numbers on the sides of their vehicles. Sometimes they park them on the street, sometimes in the back, and when they’re on the street then that is potentially a problem.

Cheryl asked why there is a problem if somebody has their telephone number on the side of their truck. Chair Ford responded, not necessarily, but there are people that complain to him because they…Cheryl asked why it was a problem. Is there something that says you can’t do that? Chair Ford responded that the complaints are that that is a business that is not an allowed business, it’s not agricultural.

Cheryl indicated that so, you have to tell them they have to come in and get a Home Occupation and Business License and you have to have one if you want to park your car and not get charged...Chair Ford stated that was not the case if you’re a plumber that contracts all over, and you park at night at your home – that’s no problem.

Clerk Vicki Bell stated that the commission was off-topic.

Jane referenced Chapter 8.10.3 – Vehicular Signs – of the Land Use Code.

Chair Ford felt the commission clarified the general footprint building idea; what an attached structure is within the 4,000 sq. ft.

Cheryl asked if they had decided they are going to move forward with something or are we going to just say no. Let’s start there.

Chair Ford asked if she meant no to rentals, no to…Cheryl – yes, just to not going to do it at all. Chair Ford – just leave it the way it is and just enforce…Cheryl – And then deal with what we’re going to deal with. We should start there before we start...

Chair Ford stated that is one place to begin, but still felt they need to clarify the issues in terms of the conflicting statements in terms of attached buildings.

Cheryl stated that either we are going to come up with a plan to allow people to do this, or we’re not. We have to start there.

Jane asked what they thought if they work on clarifying the attached building definition and clarifying the rules we are going to have for strangers in a same footprint accessory building.

Jane then proposed beginning to enforce the outside accessory building by letting people know it has been in violation all this time and see how many people yell and scream. Get some feedback about that particular issue.

Chair Ford indicated that would tell us how many of them there really are, because some of them might be technically attachable, or close enough. Jane stated not attachable; we are going to do footprint.

Chair Ford stated that if someone has a building that is 30ꞌ or less than 30ꞌ away, but currently is not technically attached, and they build a breezeway to connect it to the main building, they would be under the rules. Cheryl and Jane disagreed with a breezeway, but if they had two buildings and they built a third one in-between, yes.

Linda responded they would be if we go in and change ..23:33..at a later date back to what it used to be.


Cheryl agreed that you need to clarify it, but the secondary thing supersedes the first, so technically … we have to fix this up so people could have read this and misunderstood it. Linda responded that doesn’t mean the second one is the one we want to keep. Jane also didn’t think so.

Linda suggested that if the original one was altered, we, as a group, could meet to go back and review that and decide to out that and go back to the original one, but that is down the road. Jane added that we may want to do that before we say your attached building rental is okay, and this is what we mean by attached. Chair Ford added and then see what things don’t fit the rules currently and let them know they don’t fit the rules.

Jane suggested everyone go home and write a new definition of “building attached” and then we will compile them and pick one.

Chair Ford stated you could start with that then see what the….Cheryl stated that we keep going this way – it doesn’t matter if we’re not going to allow it.

Jane responded that she felt they were pretty much decided that we are going to allow attached footprints. That much we have to do.

Linda clarified that we have a consensus that we are going to allow the rentals if it is within the footprint, whether the footprint is the regular house or legally attached, being within the 4,000 sq. ft. footprint, but not totally separate.

Chair Ford stated if we do that first and we see what’s left over, run the flag up, see who salutes, or who complains, and we say okay, your building doesn’t fit. It’s not attached and is a separate building, and then we have to deal with what is the solution to those. That would be next.

Linda stated that right now we don’t have an ordinance saying people can have rentals in their footprint. That is where we have to have a public hearing and Jane added that what we need to have the public hearing for is to change the ordinance that we have about rentals, about apartments in your footprints. Separate apartments in your footprint can be rented to family members. So that is the little edge that we are changing; we’re really not changing much of the code.

Chair Ford stated we are clarifying the code so it is consistent, making it more clear in terms of who can actually be rented to in that structure and within that footprint. After that, everything else is technically illegal if it doesn’t fit into that.

Clerk Vicki Bell asked if they were going to believe it is a family member, and Jane’s response was that we have that now; that it has to be a family member. It probably should not be because that is almost impossible.

Chair Ford stated that basically, you can say you can rent it if it’s within your footprint and it is either attached or within the basic, primary dwelling. It is part of the residential land use just like Dave Church says. It is still residential even if it is another person.

Jane added that we are not off the hook because people are going to say why can they do it within their footprint but I can’t do it in my barn. Cheryl responded because it’s not what the town wants.

Jane stated it’s not going to be easy and it’s going to be a battle. Linda added no matter how they do it, it is going to be a battle.

Cheryl stated that the easiest battle would be to not allow it at all. Then it is just one battle. We are changing the rules, now, and if so and so can do this then I can’t do that, etc.

Linda indicated we had a survey and that was one thing… over-talking. That is the purpose of a survey.

Cheryl stated that is basically what we are doing right now, which she thinks is acceptable, is changing the wording of the current ordinance allowing people to expand their footings to 4,000 sq. ft. if they want, and everything else is off the books.


Chair Ford confirmed that everything else is a shed or barn and a barn is not for people. A barn is for animals.

Cheryl suggested that if it upsets people, then we propose they come forward with a better idea.

Jane felt they should start with education and then go to enforcement. Cheryl added that technically, we don’t have to be the enforcers; the Sheriff is. It starts, but it starts neighborly.

Chair Ford thought they were getting closer to a process we want. He thinks the process is, at the next regular meeting we have an agenda item to actually have a proposal for our revision, so we work uniformly to make these little clarifications that we’re suggesting. Then at a regular meeting we discuss that revision that we create and then we recommend that it go to a public hearing and then at public hearing we might make further revisions and then it goes to the Town Council.

Jane was willing to come up with clarification of the language but requested input from the rest of the commission for a definition of “attached building” to be submitted within a week. Include with the input why you worded it the way you did. There will also be a clarification of who you can rent to within the footprint of your residence.

Cheryl indicated there was a question about having a caretaker and the answer had been to plan your building permit to allow for that. A caretaker would not be a renter; that is a separate issue. If everyone has their homes already built and they want to have a caretaker, how do we address that problem?

Chair Ford stated that you don’t have to rent. You can still build your building, whether you call it a mother-in-law apartment or a caretaker. There is nothing illegal with that as long as it fits within…Cheryl – Those people whose homes are already built.

Cheryl felt a caretaker is a renter; your pay is room and board. It is still a rental.

Chair Ford didn’t think so; like someone that is working on your farm. You have 10 acres and they are helping you take care of your cows, etc. He thinks that is not a problem because…but we want to make sure that we can cover all the anticipated type of things. Linda added that if we don’t, and have a hearing, someone will point it out.

Chair Ford confirmed that the process is that by October 11 we will have a proposal on the revision, we vote on that, we send it to public hearing for the following month (November) and vote it to go to the Town Council.

Jane also thinks the next thing on the agenda at the public hearing is the sheds; we need to change the rules on these also.

Chair Ford stated that it seems to him the first thing we could do on sheds is at least do as was suggested – to improve the handout to help people understand what the building code actually requires and doesn’t require. To him, that should be the initial step that would improve things, and he doesn’t know that thing requires a vote.

Chair Ford added the other thing on sheds that, to him, is a little confounding, because as he walks around town he is seeing sheds is that sheds…because we have a town that has different kinds of shapes of lots and different locations. Some sheds are built against the fence when technically they’re probably not supposed to in terms of easement. Cheryl stated that if they were there before, they would be grandfathered in.

Chair Ford indicated that is where the grandfathering-in causes him problems, because why is it wrong now and it wasn’t wrong before? Jane responded because we have rules now and we didn’t have rules before. Chair Ford asked if that rule makes sense. Jane answered yes, because it is now vs. then.


Linda stated that her house wouldn’t have even been built if we were a town, so would you tell me because it is grandfathered in to knock my house down to make it legal? No, you wouldn’t do that to anything that is on the property. And people that are newer and want to do it and don’t want to follow the rules because their neighbors have a house that has been there since 1950, well, too bad.

Jane doesn’t see anything wrong with…the speed limit is 40 mph. If it was 60 mph and then it got to be 40 mph, we have to slow down. Rules change, and whatever happens now…

Chair Ford understands that, but in terms of the sheds, is there an option that maybe, under certain situations, depending on a unique shape of a lot or whatever in terms of where you can put the shed, because you have more of your garden space on the side or in the front. The reason you have a shed is so you can have your tools next to where you work.

Cheryl referenced Jane’s statement that when you built your house, you knew the rules and why didn’t you bring…closer to the…

Linda stated that this was something we discussed in another meeting and that is what the Board of Adjustment was for – hardships that were due to things out of your control. And now it has become untenable because we have trucked that problem out to an individual that charges more than it’s worth to somebody who wants to put up a Tuff Shed to pay.

Chair Ford suggested maybe a revision in terms of how you adjust; whether it is called a conditional use permit, or whether it’s called a Board of Adjustment or whether it’s…someway of being that’s a little bit maybe not as onerous for some people.

Jane felt this doesn’t matter to anybody but one person. Chair Ford disagreed and said no, there are some others also.

Jane indicated other people have bigger lots than the one person that you have been confronted by. She doesn’t want to do a conditional use permit. A conditional use permit is the only way to circumvent our rules. If we don’t want to have these rules, then let’s throw them out, and we will all have a nice morning and not have to be here. The rules are in place for a reason, the rules are not bad, and the rules can be clarified. If somebody doesn’t want to pay the $800 for a shed, then they can find a different shed, a different place, something else. That’s the fee; we’re not making any money. That is how much a variance hearing costs and if we do anything less than a variance hearing, we are only circumventing our own rules.

Chair Ford confirmed that Linda used to serve on the Board of Adjustment. Did it charge those kinds of fees and was able to solve some of these things that didn’t quite to fit? Linda responded it was usually (almost all of it) the ones that were excessive were the hardships people were dealing with like that – size of the lot. That was the first five years we were a town, so there were huge amounts of people that had stuff long before we became a town and the new rules did not….Chair Ford asked Linda when it changed so that the only way that you could solve these problems is by going to a full variance hearing that costs you a hundred dollars? Linda answered it was during the years she was not involved.

Jane added it is not the only way to solve these problems. The way to solve these problems is to get a different shed and a different place and make the correct decisions according to the rules. Or, pay $800 and then maybe not get that shed because even if that variance hearing was allowed, there’s not a hardship for a shed. There’s a hardship for my lot is a triangle and I have to…Chair Ford – And I can’t get it 10’ behind…Jane – correct.

Cheryl referenced the Code, and looking at the modifying regulations for a ½ acre, 1 acre and 2 acre are all the same, so she is only referencing the ½ acre, and then you go to 5 and 20, which are different. On ½ to 2 acres, you can put an accessory building 1 foot from the side yard property line, so she is not sure what the problem is on that. Clerk Vicki Bell stated she is a corner lot so you have to read the whole body.


Cheryl indicated then for a 5 acre lot, it has to be 20ꞌ, so it goes from 1ꞌ to 20ꞌ - Why?

Jane responded she had a sense that the big thing that she has about setbacks that was just brought up by this little chart starting in 17.6 – Minimum Area Yard and Width Requirements indicates how wide your lot has to be, the area coverage of your lot for a ½ acre lot in this situation. Your yard has to be 30ꞌ to the front, 15ꞌ to the side, and 30ꞌ to the back. She had indicated in an earlier email to the commissioners that she didn’t believe this chart was about setbacks, because a yard building, an accessory building is, by nature, those in your yard, and in this case in a ½ acre, it needs to go in your rear yard. She thinks because it says on the side it can be placed up to 1ꞌ from the side of your property line, but if you go to the chart, it says 15ꞌ, like you said. Fifteen feet is the side of your side yard, but you can still have your barn a foot away from your side fence. That says to her that this chart is not setbacks, but this chart is merely the size of your yard, and it has nothing to do with the setback.

Linda asked the clerk where the thing was on corner lots. Vicki indicated down to 17.8.c.

Cheryl added that was just with the accessory building part, the modifying regulations – if you have a ½ to 2 acre, you can put it a foot from your fence on the side, but if you have a 5 acre it has to be 20ꞌ away from your fence. Cheryl asked if anyone understood the reasoning for that. She felt it was being….Jane pointed out it is an intrusion on your neighbor’s property, and on a smaller lot, your house is already kind of intruding on your neighbor’s property.

Chair Ford offered another reason that might explain it, is a lot of the fence lines don’t actually line up with the actual property lines because of years of….So by saying 20ꞌ back, you’re probably safe and making sure you’re not on the neighbor’s property. He thinks it does make sense. The lots in town that are ½ acre, 1 acre, and 2 acres, the fences are probably more precise, close to the actual property lines. But even in this case, there are problems in some cases where the property line and the fence line are not the same. We have to make sure that whatever you do is relevant to the property line, not the fence line.

Chair Ford felt the issue was not all of the yards, going around town, fit those dimensions exactly, mainly with the behind part. The fact is that you have to be at least 10ꞌ behind the building and still 10ꞌ from the property line.

Jane asked if he was talking yards or setbacks because a yard does not necessarily begin at the end, she proposed, of the shed. But, if we allow this chart to be our setbacks, then here’s my back yard, and I have a shed here. Now, my backyard has to go from the back of the shed to the fence, instead of the shed being enclosed in my back yard. (There was obviously a drawing that was being referenced.) She thinks by the nature of a shed, it is a yard building that is part of my…the yard doesn’t start at the end of the shed. The yard starts at the end of the house.

Chair Ford stated if he understands it correctly, it has to be 10ꞌ from the house, and it has to be behind your house for the site. If there is not enough space in your yard to put it 10ꞌ behind your house and still be 10ꞌ from the property line, where do you put the shed? Jane responded you get a smaller shed. Nobody’s life, nobody’s household is determined on whether they can keep their tractor in the shed.

Linda gave the example that her house was built before we were a town, and it wouldn’t have been accepted under the new rules. When she went to add on so her mother would have her own little bedroom, she worked with Peter Stemple, they drew up a design and it was turned back immediately; the committee didn’t even get it because of setbacks. It was a front yard setback by just a few feet. It was peculiar because of the shape of her lot, but mostly because of where my front door and the number where my house was located. If my house would have been on the main road, it would have been fine. Peter Stemple said because of this you can easily get with hardship; you could easily get your things with Springdale; at that point going for a variance. The $800 wouldn’t seem bad but there was a waiting list on how long it was going to take to get a variance and I had to make a decision. Compared to a shed, my decision wasn’t smaller, but she let him redesign it and it is not


ideal, it is not something she would have chosen, because now that her mother is older, she has to walk a lot farther to get to her kitchen. But, Linda went with it because of the timing. It was a difficult choice, but she made it.

Jane asked Chair Ford if he could tell her where it says that the shed needs to be 10ꞌ from the back fence. Cheryl indicated “an accessory building may be placed up to 1ꞌ inside the property line when said building is at least 10ꞌ behind the rear of the principal dwelling or structure and complies with rear yard setbacks.

Jane interpreted that to mean that if somebody doesn’t have 11ꞌ plus the size of their shed, that all they need is 11ꞌ plus a 10ꞌ x 20ꞌ shed. At the most, it is probably going to be a 20ꞌ shed, unless it’s really narrow.

Chair Ford indicated one of the lots we are dealing with is a long, narrow lot, the house is mid and then they have a big pasture/garden area on this side, but there’s not enough space in the back… Cheryl – It has to be 30ꞌ or they wouldn’t have been able to build the house…Chair Ford indicated it was an older house that was grandfathered in. When they actually surveyed the property, the fence line doesn’t correspond with the property line, so if you move the fence to where the property is, there is not enough space to put a shed behind the building and be within the setbacks, but if you put it on the side where you would need it, on the side yard where there is the little pasture and everything, there is plenty of space, but you can’t put it there because of the…Chair Ford responded to Cheryl that it is a 1 acre lot…irrigation and the way it floods the pasture, you would have the shed right in the middle of the flooded irrigation. It seems like a reasonable one of these variance type things that we’re dealing…Jane asked if he was talking about because the shed isn’t behind the house and Chair Ford responded it was on the side. Jane clarified that it isn’t directly behind it but it is offset behind the line of the house. Chair Ford responded it is not the 10ꞌ - it doesn’t meet the 10ꞌ…

Jane didn’t see that anybody’s life is in jeopardy because they can’t have a shed.

Cheryl stated the way to get around that is to put a wall between and make it an attached building. Other commissioners responded that there are more requirements than that to be considered attached.

Chair Ford stated we do need to solve it for this person.

Jane asked if the problem is that it’s not 10ꞌ behind the house line, behind the line of the house? Linda thought it was. Jane asked at what point do you judge that…Chair Ford stated the problem is the back fence line, in this particular case, is at least 10ꞌ off from the actual property line. So, if you look on the property line to the house, there’s not enough space to put the shed between the property line and the house and be 10ꞌ away from the house. They want it on the side of the house where all the garden space is; that’s where they want it.

Jane asked what is the rear yard setback for this lot? Where do you see a rear yard setback?

Cheryl asked where does it say they can’t put it on the side? Chair Ford responded that is the problem, they have put it on the side and someone has complained that it can’t be there.

Jane indicated that it is on the side but it is behind the house; it’s off to the side, and we can’t ask people that you have to have it directly behind your house. Linda commented that she already has a storage shed back there; a building. Jane stated we are not talking about specifics. Chair Ford indicated that it is a corner lot, as well. Jane again stated we are not talking about specifics.

Jane stated that if somebody has an offset shed behind their house; it’s still behind their house. It doesn’t have to be directly in line. In some cases, perhaps some of the house has been counted as house when it’s really patio, an attached patio, and maybe that is where the line should start is at the house line because that’s where the yard line starts and the patio is a part of, is in the yard.


Chair Ford responded that that would be a reasonable thing in most cases, and if that was the case. In this particular case, there’s not enough space. Jane – smaller shed or the shed in another direction. Chair Ford – Or a variance.

Cheryl asked if we are in a situation where we are talking about an illegal building and we’re trying to find a way to…Jane - We aren’t talking about anything specific – just in general.

Cheryl stated that in general, they’re illegal buildings…Chair Ford – Several like that that don’t fit the rules. Some of them are grandfathered or could be defined as grandfathered and so then it becomes a sore point if ….Jane stated that it is only a sore point for people who have heard about it. It’s only a sore point for people that want to go “What about him?” You know, that barn was built in 1860 and that’s too bad. It’s not a sore point for the rest of the people that don’t have something to prove. We accept that there were things in place here, that this town is historic and we accept that there are historic buildings and historic outbuildings that don’t comply with our code now, but that doesn’t mean that somebody can go in and build a building and say “I have the right to build this building that does not comply with the Land Use Code because that guy has a building.” That is not okay.

Jane felt primarily what they needed to do is clarify what a setback is. There’s nothing that says there is no rear yard setback listed in our codes.

Chair Ford suggested that maybe there’s a little more to adjust here.

Cheryl stated that unless there is an easement involved, it’s really not…Chair Ford – No, there’s no easement involved…Cheryl meant in general. That’s where it becomes tricky.

Jane asked if anyone does not concur with her that the chart of yards and feet is not a setback. It has been used as a setback in the past, and she disagrees that’s what whoever wrote it meant. All agreed.

Chair Ford asked if Jane thought that needed to be clarified in terms of describing it. Jane felt in two words it could be so much simpler.

Chair Ford asked if in some of these particular cases, would this have been the kind of thing the Board of Adjustment would have dealt with in the past? In response to Chair Ford’s question to Clerk Vicki Bell if we still had the right to go to the Board of Adjustment; do we no longer have a Board of Adjustment, Megan from the audience replied we now have an adjustment officer in Springdale. Chair Ford clarified that was the only variation way of adjusting things; through a variance officer. He feels that is part of the issue is that if that is your only solution and a minimum $800 just to hear it for something that’s probably worth $100, why would you pay $800 to do something for just a worth of $500 or whatever.

Jane replied that the town says these are the rules. When you put in a shed that is obviously and clearly against the rules, when you know these are against the rules, and then you complain about the $800. The rules are right here. The rules were in place before she knew that it was $800 to get the hearing. Cheryl stated that the rules were in place before people wanted to ask forgiveness.

Jane addressed Linda in asking about the committee she was on (the Board of Adjustment). Is that a committee that says “You know, we see your hardship and we see your yard and it is difficult because it is a nonconforming lot; we’re going to allow this.” Or, would they have said “You know, we really like this person and we’re going to allow this.”

Linda replied maybe this is why they changed having the Board of Adjustment. She has heard two philosophies on it. Changed having it here and took it to a variance. She is sure part of it had to do with things that are much more exorbitant now and pricey and legal things. There was also training from Five County. We only had about one case a year. What you are talking about is they are in training, because there is a lot of stuff that can be very subjective. For instance, in five years she had one member of the board that never once voted yes to give an adjustment, because she would say “The rule is here, we’re sorry, find a way to make it work.”


Chair Ford – There was no way of having any compassion or adjustment or anything; the rules are the rules. Jane responded that it’s not about compassion; she is compassionate about the rules and loves them.

Cheryl stated that it goes back to what Jane said that if we don’t want rules, let’s just throw them out. Chair Ford felt that was a good point.

Remarks by Oler? from the audience are not understood. 100:07

Jane responded it is what our variance hearing addresses also, and that kind of thing is something that’s bigger than this small shed. These are small issues and anything that our Board of Adjustment would hear are small issues that are just…this is more convenient for me. It’s not can I build here or can I not build here. This is the lot that I bought; help me get my home into this lot. I need to change my yard a little bit because my lot is an odd shape or because I have a rock in the middle of it.

Chair Ford added that it’s not setting a precedent for everybody; it’s just a way of solving things on a case by case basis.

Jane stated that in a real hardship, which is “I can’t build here, this is a problem”; you’ve got to help me figure out a way to build a home, to be able to live here, to be able to function here. Not, “this is more convenient to have my garden tools over here.” Or, “I want to park my lawnmower in front of my house vs. behind my house.” That’s not what she really thinks of as a hardship. Chair Ford agreed.

Chair Ford felt that on those changes, one thing that we will try to create is a little handout that explains to people what they can and cannot build; what the residential code actually says and then that will clear up some things.

Chair Ford added that on specific cases, one of the things we could consider is whether we need to reinstate a Board of Adjustment. Clerk Vicki Bell felt that was the Town Council’s decision. Jane didn’t feel we should recommend it because she thinks it’s just a way of getting around our beloved code. Cheryl added that it was also impartial. She thinks that was the reason it went out.

Chair Ford agreed because it is hard for our neighbors to say something and it is wise to have someone from the outside. Cheryl added that they do charge an awful lot of money for that.

Jane responded that if it were for a real thing. She doesn’t want to discount anybody’s shed not being a real thing on tape, but if it is a real hardship, it’s worth $800. If it’s between building your house and not building your house…Chair Ford – That is a legitimate thing.

Chair Ford confirmed that what he hears they are saying is that we should basically apply the rules and we will clarify the rule in terms of sheds and we are clarifying the other things on there, sets per unit and then we will apply those. And he is hearing her say even on this particular case, it’s either the variance officer, move she shed, buy a smaller shed, or move it over and it doesn’t have to be directly behind but it does have to fit within the general interpretation of the rules that it has to be behind that line. Jane agreed with that and Chair Ford added if that’s the case, then we say “Look, that’s as far as we can, and if it doesn’t fit, I’m sorry, you’ll have to…..Cheryl stated that Mark Schraut works for a lot cheaper than $800. He can put a square into a round peg.

Chair Ford stated that if someone wants to build a foundation to connect to it, and put a roof on it and fit it into the rules in terms of an attached building, it’s no longer a shed, it’s an attached structure. Cheryl added that if it is an attached building, it fits into a whole different category for a building permit. Chair Ford added that it would have to have a legitimate foundation and meet all the requirements.

Chair Ford asked if there were any other big ones that we need to address.

Cheryl stated that since this is a work meeting, and regarding the accessory building, she didn’t see anywhere where it said you can only have one or you can have ten accessory buildings as long as they


fit within the lot allotment. Chair Ford responded that if you have 20 acres, or ten acres, or five, and you have enough space for them and you are not infringing on setbacks, etc.

Cheryl asked if you can have as many as you want. Chair Ford didn’t think you could.

Town Clerk Vicki Bell read from the code “No accessory building or group of accessory buildings shall cover more than 25% of the total acreage of the lot.”

Cheryl confirmed that you can have as many as you want as long as you don’t exceed the 25%, and that’s including your main structure.

Chair Ford indicated that you could have a pre-house, you could have a shed, a carport, etc.

Jane didn’t read that 25% to include the main structure. It says no accessory building or group of accessory buildings shall cover more than 25%. So you could have a 4,000 sq. ft. house and then 25% of the remaining.

Chair Ford stated you could have a barn, a mother-in-law apartment, a shed, a greenhouse. We are okay with that on the larger lots and then the small lots, by definition, don’t have enough space for a group of accessory buildings. Jane stated that it’s still 25%.

Cheryl referenced the setbacks – “any accessory building shall not encroach upon an easement that causes the easement to be inaccessible”.

Chair Ford stated that they vary depending on the easement. Jane felt we need to have a setback specified from the easements. Chair Ford felt the setback should be back from the easement. Cheryl felt it didn’t need to be very big, but just so it doesn’t encroach.

Oler? made some comments relative to utility and road easements.

Linda stated that years ago 5:45 that is why Rockville was so different; they were concerned the way the property lines were and fire equipment going between people’s homes. If you were in suburbia, it would be real obvious you couldn’t get fire equipment, but they let a lot of stuff when we were in the county go by because of the way the houses were spaced on the half-acre lots.

Cheryl gave an example which is causing her some confusion. When she obtained a building permit she was told there was a barn; she has since been told something else. There is an old barn that the corner of the barn is probably three feet from an easement and she had been told that was not in code and she would have to tear it down. But it doesn’t say anywhere that it’s not in compliance. Jane felt she had been given wrong information. Cheryl stated that she didn’t tear it down because it has been there for a long time and she isn’t using it for anything.

Chair Ford knows of other instances such as Cheryl’s on different properties.

Jane agreed that doesn’t encroach means doesn’t cross the line of the easement. If you want to add a setback to the easement, she would say it would be a one foot like it is on a fence line. That way, if someone wanted to fence off that easement, or if you wanted to fence off your own easement such as an easement that goes down to a water pipe that the neighbors can go to. If I wanted to fence that off and keep my dogs out of their access.

Chair Ford stated that you could clarify it by saying you can’t go closer than one foot to an easement. Everyone agreed.

Chair Ford felt it would help because the purpose of an easement is to have access, whether it be by a vehicle or you’re just walking through or whatever. It would depend on the kind of easement. If you were repairing lines and you need to go beside the line, etc. Their easement would have to be carefully defined to determine the additional one foot setback.

Cheryl stated that it actually fits all the current building codes.


Jane responded to Chair Ford’s question as to whether this was an acceptable change by saying one foot, if anything at all; as long as it isn’t over the line. She felt most easements are also for the use of the person who would be building the shed in it anyway. If you needed to get a big truck through your easement, you would be stupid to put a shed there.

Chair Ford felt they had accomplished enough for the day but asked if there were any more big ones that they need to clarify.

Cheryl had questions about the types of accessory buildings built. Are we going to put a list? We talked about pre-fab buildings for a building permit. What about containers. Chair Ford indicated that had been a problem. Jane stated containers have been specifically forbidden.

Cheryl pointed out it is the 21st century and people are utilizing them for many things.

Jane felt it was not according to what the general plan indicates as far as the residential nature. If you put in a container and it’s going to be your barn, you might need to make it look like a barn, which is entirely possible.

Cheryl understood you would have to have specific…but people are going to ask.

Linda stated we have had requests and they have been turned down.

Chair Ford reported we have had people take containers away. The only problem is there are others in town that have had old containers for about 20 years and they don’t move theirs, but other people have had to move theirs. That creates some inconsistency.

Jane thinks the container being a container itself is not the problem. The container looking like a container is the problem.

Town Clerk Vicki Bell referenced the Land Use Code, Section 7.19.

Linda commented that containers were not that common way back, and this restriction is something that was added to our code at a later date. When you add something, then you’re question is how do you tell the people that already have it.

Cheryl stated that people are building their homes out of them.

Jane read from Section 7.19 – “Enclosed shipping containers, boxcars, cargo containers, shipping crates, semi-trailers or other movable weather-resistant containers of any kind shall not be installed, placed or maintained on property within the Town for any purpose. PODs (portable on demand containers) shall only be allowed on a property for a maximum of ten (10) days, while being loaded or unloaded, in the process of moving personal property.”

Chair Ford asked what about someone that has had it for 20 years and claims it was grandfathered in. That is why he has a problem with grandfathering being used for a lot of things because it’s a long time. If the problem is that we don’t like the looks of them and they change the character of the town, then it should be bad for whether it was 20 years ago or whether it was a year ago. That is one of those things that he thinks grandfathering is being misused.

Jane asked if this planning commission would give her a permit for a workshop without electricity and without water for a shipment container that she put wood sides on and made it look like a wooden, traditional barn. Chair Ford stated that if she enclosed it so that you don’t know that it is a metal shop inside, he didn’t think that would be a problem. Jane stated that our code doesn’t say that, so maybe we need to clarify that.

Chair Ford stated that this is another one of those that, to him, needs to be clarified and we need to say either all containers out, or you can adapt it this way, you can camouflage it, you can do whatever, and it has to fit setbacks and any other regulations that would apply.


Cheryl stated that, financially, it is a big trend right now. It’s a lot cheaper than building a barn or a pre-fab shed.

Chair Ford asked if it needed to be clarified so that if the camouflaged it so it just looks like a shed or are we saying they are going to allow? Cheryl responded that then that comes up with how we are telling people how their houses have to look. Chair Ford added that they decided they don’t like, aesthetically, telling people how to do their things.

Jane stated that they either tell them to camouflage this so it doesn’t look like a container, or tell them they can’t have it at all.

Cheryl gave a for instance with the camouflage that she lives in an art community and she has a lot of friends that are artists and so they paint this and everyone else is, like, oh, that’s terrible art; that’s not good enough.

Chair Ford stated that we decided we don’t want to do that. We told people they can paint their houses and design them the way we want. We don’t want to be that kind of police, but yet you tell them okay, but you are going to have to camouflage.

Cheryl responded that then the easiest thing to do is say no containers, or bring in a plan and say you are going to build a shed and this will be the construction of it. The shed will look like this and have a drawing of a more traditional-looking building, and so it is seriously disguised. If it’s just paint, then it is not good enough. Cheryl indicated that right now it is no. Jane added it would have to be changed.

Jane’s thinking was that this is below the 200 sq. ft., doesn’t require a building permit, so it doesn’t require input at all, except for it is a shipping container. If you bring it in and by the time I notice it, it already looks like a shed, and it’s below the square footage that is required of us, there is nothing we need to do. It’s only that it looks like a container that we’re going to know it’s a container unless it is a 40ꞌ container, then they would have to tell us that it is only a structural component and not a pod itself.

In answer to Chair Ford’s question as to whether they need to do anything, make some clarification, raise it to as whether we keep it and enforce it.

Oler? indicated having a foundation and Jane did not see anything in the code indicating a foundation.

Jane gave the example of if she goes to the fair and asks the shed salesman what she need a permit for and he says if it is permanent and has a cement foundation, you need a permit, and if it’s not, you don’t.

Chair Ford stated that this is another item that is not clear to people and we need a handout to say that you need a foundation for this and if you’re putting a foundation, you need a permit for it. Jane offered to make a fake handout and email it to the commission for them to add things they need to add.

Chair Ford had no problem with keeping the no containers as he thinks they are really unsightly and if you need a shed, buy a shed and put up a real shed rather than that. But, he thinks he understands that in recent years it has become very useful; it’s cost-effective and very strong. Maybe it is something we need to take a look. Do we take it to public hearing and ask people if we want to keep that or not, because we could do that. Cheryl suggested we could change the wording addressing the design, etc.

Cheryl asked if somebody that is a long-haul trucker can park their rig on their property.

Chair Ford asked where they were with the containers.

Oler? gave his input as to what he would require in order for it to be accepted.

Jane felt the whole idea of maintaining the residential look and the rural residential look of the community has to fall into things that are not traditional stick-built houses. Cheryl was thinking more


the agricultural part of it – the 20 acre lots – the 5 – 120 acre lots. Chair Ford added they could be very attractive like a ranch office, or the shop. It’s a very cost-effective way to have a shop without having to build a regular shop.

Jane stated that it’s all about aesthetics. It’s only about aesthetics. Maybe this is something for our next survey because since it is a trend, let’s get the town’s thoughts on it.

Chair Ford suggested raising it in a public hearing as a question or we could raise it at a public hearing whether we want to continue with this ordinance or not and see how many people say no; they would like to go back and have more freedom or whether we want to stick with it. Let’s get some feedback. Cheryl felt when we have a public hearing about the housing we could address this.

Jane stated she could see people saying “you know, I don’t mind if you have a studio or if you have a home, or something similar built out of them, but I don’t want to see them as a storage in my neighbor’s yard.”

Chair Ford felt it would be worth asking people at a public hearing just to see how much reaction there is, and then it is easier to say we’ve raised it and yes if it’s strong reaction against them, then we can enforce the ones that have been for 20 or so years and tell them we are sorry but they can’t have it there.

Cheryl referenced that Jane stated she didn’t mind it being used as a studio, but what happens when you can’t have electricity in it. Chair Ford added or water. If you have a studio, doing pottery, you need water and electricity. Even a shop or barn would require these utilities.

Jane responded that you can’t have water. If it has electricity it has to come before the Planning Commission to be approved.

Chair Ford added that you can have a hose bib outside the building which would suffice for washing machinery or watering stock, but no plumbing inside the building as that gives cause for it to become an illegal dwelling.

Chair Ford stated that if you are an artist or a potter, you have to have running water. Linda reminded them that we just gave a permit last year and told her she couldn’t have water. Jane indicated she is a potter and has considered building a studio and she can do it without water

Chair Ford stated that if you are a photographer and doing it the old-fashioned way, you actually have….Jane stated that is what your basement is for.

Cheryl asked that if we are going to be moving forward with letting people rent their houses and everything, why are we going to limit someone not being able to have water….Chair Ford added – inside the garage instead of outside and you have to run a hose through the door every time you try to do your photography.

Jane stated that she is exactly the case they are talking about. She has the little house and it is set up to be a workshop or studio and not habitation. It has no kitchen; there is only a deep sink and a refrigerator. The bathroom plumbing has been disconnected because it isn’t allowed.

Chair Ford responded that that is why we are bringing this up. He feels that rule is a little bit…Clerk Vicki Bell reminded them that they are going off the topic and they indicated they weren’t. They were discussing accessory buildings.

Jane stated that when we were talking about the steps that you had to do to have a house, an accessory house, she was thinking she should go ahead and get that approved and never rent it because she doesn’t want renters, but just so she could go in and use the toilet and have water. She doesn’t see a whole lot wrong with it except for the reason they haven’t allowed her to have water is because it could be rented. If that’s the case, then we are back to the rental and if we do okay the rentals not in the footprint – beyond the footprint – then that building should be able to have water whether I rent it or not. But she has been following the rules, I have not water, and I have to go outside.


Linda asked if they didn’t settle that accessory thing when we said we wanted it to be a part of the footprint? Chair Ford responded yes, but stated that a lot of those accessory buildings that still exist and for those people may state: “Okay, I won’t rent it and have someone living in it, but I want it as a shop, I want it as an artist studio, I want it as a potting barn. Jane asked if they need to tell us that? Or, can they just turn the water on? Cheryl didn’t feel we need to be policing that, but that’s where the neighbor will come in and say they’re renting it.

Jane state that that means that provision C in this case…Chair Ford stated that any accessory building shall not have plumbing and shall not be a separate living…We can say you can’t rent it as a living facility, but you can have water in there for other activities such as shop, artistry work, etc.

Jane suggested doing this: If you have an accessory building with water and electricity and you are building a new one, or you are installing electricity and plumbing, that is when you need a permit whether it is below 200 sq. ft. or not. The same with plumbing goes with electricity because if she has a 100 sq. ft. shed and I want electricity, I need a permit because I want an electrician to inspect it.

Chair Ford agreed and stated any plumbing or electricity, regardless of the size or purpose, needs to be inspected for safety, for fire, etc. That would be an improvement on what we’re doing and it would allow a little bit more freedom, but would still be drawing the line on you can’t turn that into a rental facility.

Jane stated that the idea of this is garages and things, people with horse stalls that want automatic waterers, people with horse stalls like to have just a small beam because they want electricity, they want a spotlight to check the horses at night. If there is an emergency or something you need to turn on the light to make sure your horse isn’t colic. Chair Ford stated that that would be reasonable for an agricultural or artist or others but we draw the line on renting those; define them as an accessory building that you can rent.

Cheryl stated that if you don’t allow them to put in toilets, then I think we’re going to be a lot safer.

Chair Ford stated that if you have a studio and you are an artist out working in your studio, you don’t want to have to trudge clear back to the house every time you go to the toilet. So, that is saying you can’t have a toilet….Cheryl stated that if you are in Alaska, she can see that, but we aren’t. Chair Ford responded that that’s true, but if you have farm workers, do you want them to come into the house, because that is where the bathroom is. If there was a little workshop with a bathroom so they can go in and clean their hands and change their clothes out there, not come into the house. He thinks people would prefer that, and you need a little bathroom with a little washing sink or stall. It doesn’t have to be a full bathroom. But to say you can’t have a bathroom, what does that mean? Just a toilet, or just a sink or shower. Then you start getting into….Jane asked what constitutes a residence? A kitchen and a bathroom constitutes a residence. A kitchen can be a microwave and a hot plate.

Chair Ford asked if we can really enforce that kind of thing. If we get into that language ….Cheryl stated that when you are hungry and you don’t want to trek all the way back to the house…Jane asked how this is going to stop people from building a tiny house; I think this is going to help people build their tiny house on their property and rent it illegally or a tiny vacation house….Chair Ford added that is why the whole issue of granting accessory buildings has been so hard, because it is so easy to stretch it. You just add a sink, and then you add a toilet, and then you add a shower. You can buy self-contained showers to place in a corner and it soon becomes a house. Are we going to start going in once a year and saying that toilet is a decorative toilet, so that’s a regular bathroom? It becomes impossible to enforce.

Cheryl stated that if we’re allowing people to rent their property in the confines of their footprint, if it goes forward, then we have done our job. We’ve made the town happy, but if half the town wants this and half the town wants the other thing we are talking about (the accessory buildings), we make everybody happy and then we’re not going to be enforcers; we’re not enforcing anything now and we aren’t going to enforce it in the future. Jane responded but we should.


Cheryl felt we should also, but…Chair Ford stated that you have to be very intrusive. Cheryl continued… as a small town of approximately 200 people, if we are going to allow people to put their little place on their square footage/footprint, but we are going to allow somebody to have a shop for whatever reason and not rental and maybe clarify it’s not for renting, then the neighbors think somebody’s living there….Chair Ford added that they can complain and we can deal with it.

Cheryl stated that we need to deal with it, you can’t just stick your head in the sand, so we have to actually have to define what we have to have – this is what will happen if you are found not complying. Chair Ford confirmed that if you get reported that you are actually renting it, that it is not just a shop, but you are renting it, people are living in it, then you deal with it then. Cheryl added that we have to make it clear to the town that it is going to be enforced.

Jane stated that we haven’t not enforced it because of favoritism or laziness. We’ve not enforced this because this has been pending. Please don’t infer that we were lackadaisical about…Chair Ford and Cheryl responded that that’s not what is being said. Chair Ford added that that is why they have been having all these meetings; to try to resolve it.

Cheryl isn’t thinking about that at all; she is thinking how. Jane added that it’s been pending for the last ten years.

Cheryl stated that with that said, we could also make it so the building can’t be more than 200 sq. ft. as well. Jane stated that if they can get a permit. You can get a permit for a 201 sq. ft. building. Cheryl added that if we are going to allow water, etc., we can set a size to it.

Jane didn’t feel that is fair, because I want to put water and electricity in my garage. I want to add that and it is already too big. She doesn’t think it is going to solve the problem because people are doing some amazing things with very small living spaces.

Chair Ford commented that some hobbies take more space. If you have a woodshop combined with other things, you need equipment, you need space. Limiting space would be a problem.

Chair Ford commented that it seemed to him saying you can have water and electricity to an accessory building for whatever purposes you need it for – photography, art, agriculture or whatever – it’s okay, but you can’t rent it as a living facility. It’s on the books; we’re not going to be going around peaking in people’s windows, but if a neighbor complains that someone’s living there that is doing things wrong, etc., then we have the legal precedent to enforce it. We can send someone to see. It allows a little more freedom in terms of water and electricity for these buildings. It doesn’t say what size it has to be. Obviously you can’t have a shop that is beyond the size of your house. There was disagreement with that and Jane stated as long as it wasn’t over 4,000 sq. ft. Chair Ford stated that there aren’t people living in it and no one complains, it’s your business.

Cheryl added that the other requirements would need to be met, i.e. no more than 25% of the acreage.

Chair Ford felt that would be more enforceable, more equitable to everybody.

Jane confirmed what Cheryl started earlier was the list of things that we are going to enforce about sheds. If it is over 200 sq. ft., and it is just a roof with no walls like a carport or an arena cover. If it’s over that, are we going to, because it has no walls and it is only a roof or permanent canopy…Cheryl stated that if they don’t have footings, it shouldn’t be built. It could blow away and cause a lot of damage. Chair Ford stated that if it is over 200 sq. ft. it needs a building permit

Cheryl suggested that it can be a different price. Jane added that it can be a desk permit. No matter where it is, no matter what it is, if it is over 200 sq. ft. it needs some sort of permit. Chair Ford added that way they could check the footings and the structure for stability. Cheryl stated that in the International Code, anything that requires a footing or a roof over 200 sq. ft. requires a building permit.


Jane stated that if she is only putting in a shade for her horses and it is under 200 sq. ft. and it does or doesn’t have a footing, it doesn’t require a permit. If it is less than 200 sq. ft., no electricity, no plumbing, we are hands off. Chair Ford added that if it has water and/or electricity and/or it is over 200 sq. ft. it needs a permit. We are saying those buildings cannot be living structures for people.

Cheryl asked what are we going to do about the people who have buildings already built that want to now incorporate into this new ordinance and make it actually….Chair Ford stated that it would mean that they would want to put water and electricity in them. They can, but they can’t put people in them. If they want to use it as a studio or as a pottery barn…Cheryl asked if they come forward and say…Jane stated that they need at least a desk permit. Chair Ford added that if it is water and electricity, it would need an inspection to make sure they are following code. Cheryl added if the building is already in place and they just aren’t using it, and there are a lot of those.

Jane stated all she would have to do is reconnect the water, and she would have a cute little workshop. Do I need to get a permit for that? Chair Ford responded that if it is already connected, he would think it would make sense to at least have it inspected to make sure…Jane stated that it won’t pass inspection. But it has been used as a residence. It’s not like the water and electricity are new, so why would I need to get an inspection?

Chair Ford responded that that is the problem with older structures that don’t meet code, etc.

Jane thinks that since she is not building it, she doesn’t need it. Chair Ford stated that the town is not liable to it. It is their business if they want to use it as a shed or a studio or whatever; he thinks it is their business.

Cheryl stated that people bring their own electricity in and water all the time to secondary structures like that and don’t ever say anything, as we all know. Jane asked if it is safe the way they are putting the electricity in – just bringing in a cord?

Cheryl stated that granted, the town’s not liable, but if a fire starts, whether we’re liable or not, the town’s in trouble if there’s a fire. Chair Ford asked the building inspector about that and he said we’re not.

Jane stated that if the fire spreads to other structures on other properties, there may be an issue. We need to do our best to prevent that but it might not…Chair Ford stated that one of the things you can do is education. For your own safety and that of your neighbors, it would be wise to see how you can improve the wiring, because you can upgrade wiring with breakers, etc., and recommend that people that have older buildings is to have them put in breakers, etc. or sprinklers or something to ameliorate, because you can inspect their…Cheryl stated no to the sprinklers.

Jane asked if it was legal for her to have to do her own electrical work or does she need to be a licensed electrician. Cheryl responded that as a homeowner/builder, you have to have a certified, licensed electrician. Jane add that that covers us because it is not our problem and somebody professional is doing it, or I’m going under the rug and I’m wiring my own thing with a broken electrical cord and some coat hangers.

Chair Ford stated that there is a limit as to what we can do, but he believes the town does need to look at health and safety issues of what people might do with older structures, or not do. It depends on how much…Cheryl stated that all these people that we are going to say they can’t rent and now they turn it into a shop. Obviously everything is already in place.

Jane added that they don’t need to do anything and the inspector will probably say “It hasn’t burned down yet, and it’s probably not done.” If she was to put electricity into my old garage that doesn’t have electricity now…Chair Ford stated that then it should be inspected. Jane responded no, not necessarily inspected; it has to be put in by a licensed electrician and she does need a certain level of permit for that because any electrical work other than changing a socket needs…Chair Ford stated


that’s what the inspector would say – “Was this done by a certified electrician?” and he attested that he followed the code and he did it, etc.

Chair Ford stated that putting it in now, after the fact, we have the right to ask for that kind of inspection and permitting. If it is already there, it is out of our hands. Jane felt our building inspector has said that before regarding the other issue of multiple housing; he can’t inspect it after the fact and we are going to go with it has lasted so far.

Chair Ford stated that we need to pull all these together. Some of these need clarifications, some like on the containers and the other things we go to public hearing and we inform the public what we’re thinking of doing in clarification so we see what the feedback is. In some cases, we are actually proposing new ones. It is going to take a little bit of work; he doesn’t think they will have all of them ready by October 11; let’s just get the ones we can by October 11, at least the big one they were first talking about in terms of the accessory units, the footprint, etc. As soon as we can get these clarifications, we present them. Maybe we need to decide which ones need to go to a public hearing and which ones don’t. Jane added anything that we change.

Chair Ford felt that some of these things we probably won’t be able to get into until next year, and we will just have to have public hearings as we need them to get them ready.

In response to Clerk Vicki Bell indicating there are posting and publication requirements, Chair Ford responded it would probably be next year before we have our public hearings. Jane suggested we shouldn’t have them on election night anyway.

Chair Ford suggested that maybe the wisest thing is just use the rest of this year to get these things clarified and written up. And then early next year we have a public hearing. Jane stated for them to expect a note/email from her giving them a list of things that need your input.

Cheryl stated that for the public hearing, she felt that the commission should include in the next three newsletters the proposed agendas for January so that everyone knows what we are going to be doing. Chair Ford added that we need to list everything – the containers, rentals, water and electricity in buildings, the size of structures, the sheds, all these different things to come up in public hearing together. If you have concerns or questions, you need to start letting people know and the more we can start getting it out, it will make the public hearing go better.

Clerk Vicki Bell reminded them that the newsletter goes out November 15 and any articles need to be submitted by November 1.

Cheryl stated that we should know what we are going to bring to the hearing in January, whether we have it all hashed out…Linda asked Bob how long he would be gone. Chair Ford replied from December 1 to January 11. He was unaware if that was before or after the January meeting. The public hearing would probably have to be in February because one other issue that we are going to face with the first January meeting is that we may be short; whether we get a new member or two on the committee, because Karen Lodinger is not sure yet whether she will reapply. Her term ends and she has to reapply. He didn’t feel we should go to a public hearing unless we have a full component of members.

Some indicated their desire to possibly leave the commission. Chair Ford has stated that he will stick around at least until we try to resolve some of these, but he is not guaranteeing that he will complete the next year.

3. ADJOURN – Jane Brennan MOVED the meeting be adjourned and the motion was SECONDED by Linda Brinkley.

VOTE ON MOTION: Cheryl McGovern – AyeLinda Brinkley – Aye Jane Brennan – Aye


Robert Ford – Aye

The meeting adjourned at 1:10 pm.

Minutes Prepared by:

Elaine M. Harris Deputy Town Clerk

APPROVED:

_________________________________Planning Commission Chair/Vice Chair

rockville planning commission€¦ · web view26/09/2016 · karen lodinger was excused. town...

Documents