EVER HAVE ONE OF THOSE DAYS WHEN YOU JUST CAN'T SEEM TO GET IT RIGHT?

Well, in my estimation, the Board just did at their last meeting when it comes to the "ever-popular" (read still-resurfacing) ordinance on accessory building size.

You are going to have to bear with me, please, as this gets a little complicated.

As you might recall, there was a public hearing a few months ago on what the Board was proposing then, since they evidently didn't think that 200% of the primary structure gave citizens enough room for their personal storage, which use is what is allowed under our Ordinance in such buildings.

Think about that for just a minute. Whatever size your house's footprint is, including your garage's if it is attached, you could have twice that size in storage building(s) for your out-of-season clothes, extra furniture, holiday decorations, etc. If you have even just the minimum-sized house currently required (960 sq. ft.), along with even just the minimum-sized garage currently required (484 sq. ft.), you could still have 2,888 sq. ft. in storage building(s), or the equivalent of 2.98 four-car garages. I think even for a pack rat like me, that would surely be a lot. 

One person mentioned to me that he knows someone in another township who has lots of collector cars.  That would be personal storage.

At one of the Board's meetings, one Board Supervisor mentioned he would like a building to store his boat.  That would be personal storage.






Okay, that's an issue, and probably people naturally would like the cheap way out and store them here rather than at facilities that are built for such items.  I get that, too.

However, it did not seem to enter the Supervisors' heads that PERHAPS the cleanest way to amend the Ordinance was to increase the percentage, leaving aside for the moment whether the definition of "accessory" is blown going beyond the 200%.  (By Ordinance definition, such an "accessory" structure is "subordinate to" and "does not change the character of" the principal use.)


Instead, they came up with language allowing up to 25% of a parcel, so not related to the primary structure square footage at all, even though "accessory" is related to "primary," could be covered with impervious surface, presumably one's house, garage, driveway and "accessory" buildings. (Be aware that under the former and the then-proposed language, agricultural buildings were always exempt, so that issue does not enter in.)

This proposal met with strong resistance and protest from various quarters, including former Planning Commissioners, former Board Supervisors, the VRWJPO, and "just 'plain' ol' citizens!" 

Do the math and you will figure out that it would mean that on a 10-acre parcel, not unusual in Eureka, 2.5 ACRES, or 108,900 sq. ft., could be covered, mostly by "accessory" buildings. Subtract for a house/garage and a 1,000-ft. driveway, and you still have enough left over for 109 four-car garages!

Even on a 2-acre parcel, the minimum currently required, that would still allow 0.5 acres or 21,780 sq. ft. to be covered, mainly in "accessory" buildings.  If one deleted the footprint of a house/garage and an additional 1,000 sq. ft. for a driveway, one would still be allowed roughly 20 four-car garages!  On 2 acres! Does any of this seem sensible to you?

Okay, all that is water under the bridge. (If it looks like I am having way too much fun with clip art, I probably am!)

Because of the reaction from the above-mentioned public hearing, the Board, outside of any further public hearing, then came up with AND ENACTED INTO LAW their "brainchild" that for acreages that were too small to qualify as ag under state statute, that is, 10.999 acres or less if a house is involved, they would allow 5,000 sq. ft.of "accessory" buildings on parcels 2-5.999 acres, and 10,000 sq. ft. of "accessory" buildings on those of 6-10.999 acres..  The principal use would in most instances be a single family dwelling. So 5,000 sq. ft. divided by 968 sq. ft. for a four-car garage would leave one with more than 5 such garages on even 2 acres, while 10,000 sq. ft. divided by 968 sq. ft for a four-car garage would leave one with the equivalent of more than 9 such garages on even 6 acres.  Ordinance  Better, (I certainly don't say good) but there is still a problem with what is now LAW, which I then pointed out to them!

WHAT is that?  Not all parcels over 10.999 acres are agriculturally used! (Note that their ordinance language still mentions the former language saying that agricultural buildings are not included in the sum of accessory buildings on a parcel. This is NONSENSE because a 10.999 parcel with a house cannot be ag in the first place.) I myself have a non-ag parcel equal to or greater than 11 acres which is 17 acres in size, of which I informed my elected officials.  It also has a grandfathered housing right.  I could build a modest home with a modest garage and still cover nearly the whole thing, just as long as I met the setbacks!  How can that be?  Well, there is no provision for such a parcel, so there is no limit for such a parcel.  All I have to do is to tell them that I am going to use it for personal storage: Trust me.






Supervisor Miller stated publicly that, yes, he guessed there is a problem.



I suggested that perhaps there needs to be a cap on such non-ag parcels of 11 acres or more.  That seemed to be thought a good idea, except when it eventually came back again at yet another meeting (the last meeting, and here we are getting to the "just can't get it right part" of my headline), it was then proposed that such a parcel would automatically get 10,000 sq ft of accessory buildings, but could receive even more, with a Conditional Use Permit or CUP.  Okay, a CUP is a good thought because it involves a public hearing, except that it was still left without a cap under those circumstances, which I protested.  We would be back to the "just meet the setbacks" situation. A Board could allow up to that "setback amount" if it desired. Or not.  Seems arbitrary to me, I said. Township Attorney, Chad Lemmons, then suggested to the Board that he could write it so that in no instance would there be more than 25% of the parcel used in this manner, with which the Board agreed..

Back where we started from, right?





Still wondering how someone can have that much personal storage?  I am. When pressed further on USE for larger-than-10,000 sq ft., Supervisor Miller mentioned a horse arena.  He said "someone" had spoken to him.  That "someone" was interested, he said, in purchasing a 28-acre parcel and wanted to put up "a horse arena," that would be large and, Miller said, horses are not ag so it wouldn't be exempt. Currently, we do not give CUPs for horse arenas. Look at the list of uses for which one can receive CUPs.  "Horse arena" is not on it. So what is the Board going to do about that?  What else might they do? Still no additional public hearing?  As a member of the public, do you feel informed by your Board of Supervisors?


AND YET, there is STILL ANOTHER PROBLEM that no one has seemed to have thought of yet.  That is, under the agritourism ordinance that has also been down a rocky path under this Board's watchful eye, but which seems likely to be enacted in some form, even large ag properties could have buildings that the public might tour.  If the public is admitted, then they are no longer ag buildings!  They would be accessory buildings, but they would have to be permitted for public use.  AND we HAVE NO LIMITS there, either, whether under this ordinance language for non-ag properties or under the "definition language" which the Board in its wisdom thought was adequate for the use of agritourism!


                                 HELP YOURSELF.