River Bend Times

During the its Feb. 28 meeting, the Clinton City Council discussed potential changes to a zoning ordinance for accessory buildings on properties within the city. 

The proposed changes to the ordinance would give specific limits to the size of the accessory buildings depending upon the size of the entire lot and its zoning code. Councilmember Pat Determan was not in favor of the changes, saying he preferred to go with "the 30% rule," which means that accessory buildings legally cannot be larger than than 30% of the total lot size.

Determan said the formula would satisfy residents' concerns, while the proposed table of size limits in the ordinance would not. Council member Cody Seeley and Mayor Scott Maddasion replied that that the 30% rule was not always effective, however, and if someone had several acres of property, the rule would not allow them to have overly large accessory units.

Karen Rowan, Building and Neighborhood Services Operations director, also told the council that the ordinance did not apply to active farms, and that many residential neighborhood associations have their own rules about accessory buildings. Several council members proposed and considered adopting the 30% rule with maximums for residential areas and zoning. The issue of special-use permits was broached as a way around restrictions for properties that fall outside normal uses or zoning, although the concern was mostly around large residential properties on multiple acres that could build a commercial-size accessory building if the 30% rule were enacted.

"We did talk about a special use permit," Rowan said. "So basically we would allow the bigger buildings, but with a special use you'd go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment and you'd say, 'I want to put a bigger than a whatever your cap is,' and we can go up to there. But the Board of Adjustment would actually go out and look at the site because that's what they do. They would appeal to the board and they would go, 'Yes, you know what? It's not going to be a hazard. It's not going to be a nuisance. It's not going to tax the neighborhood. It's not going to be [an] issue. Nobody's going to see it. We don't care. Go ahead and put it in.'"

The council discussed several other aspects, including height requirements and set-back limits. The council voted to send the issue to the Planning and Zoning Commission before being brought back to the council to ensure resident satisfaction and building safety before adoption of the new requirements and limitations.