.jpg)
Following a unanimous recommendation for approval from the Lexington City Planning Commission, the Lexington City Council held a public hearing last Thursday on a proposed ordinance which outlines regulations and standards for accessory dwelling units within the city.
Several members of Council raised some concerns regarding some of the language and the public hearing was continued to the next Council meeting.
Most of the discussion centered around the potential for ADUs to be utilized as short-term rentals.
Council member David Sigler raised concern about the ADU ordinance creating a conflict with the city’s shortterm rental ordinance, specifically around what the latter ordinance defines as “Type B” rentals.
The short-term rental ordinance allows for two types of short-term rentals within the city. Type A rentals are when the homeowner rents out one or two rooms within their residence, while they’re staying there, for up to 104 nights per year, while Type B rentals are where the owner leaves the home and rents th e entire property under a short-term lease, which is allowed for up to 45 nights per year. Short-term rentals in the city’s Residential-Light Commercial (RLC) zoning districts are the exception and do not have a maximum limit on the number of nights a property can be rented as a short-term rental.
In any case, property owners are only permitted to rent rooms within, or the entirety of, their primary residence as a short-term rental under the city’s short-term rental ordinance. Sigler noted that, if the ADU is a separate dwelling, the owner of the main dwelling could not file for an application to rent it as a short-term rental as it would not be their primary residence. The only way the ADU could be rented out as a short-term rental under those conditions is if the property owner rented the ADU to someone who signed a long-term lease, and then that renter could potentially apply for a short-term rental permit for the ADU as it is their primary residence.
“I just want to get this right,” he said. Council member Leslie Straughan, who serves as Council’s liaison to the Planning Commission, and Mayor Frank Friedman each noted that the intent was for there to be no more than one ADU and one short-term rental allowed per parcel, with the owner of the property being able to decide whether to rent the ADU as a short-term or long-term lease.
Sigler said that he wanted to go with the intent of the Planning Commission, but that the short-term rental ordinance may need to be amended to align the two. City Attorney Jeremy Carroll was instructed to look at both ordinances and try to find a way to reconcile the intent of the Planning Commission with the ordinances as written.
Sigler also noted that the ordinance did not require detached ADUs to have separate meters for water and other utilities, while the city code states that each “housekeeping unit” should have its own water meter and that it can’t be connected to another unit.
City Planner Arne Glaeser said he wasn’t as familiar with that section of the code and would have to do further research into the issue. When Sigler asked why detached ADUs weren’t required to have their own water meters in the ordinance, Glaeser said that part of the reason was due to expense.
“Depending on how many rules and regulations you put in place, these are going to become more and more expensive,” he explained, “and if you require that second meter for all those utilities, then you’re certainly adding an expense and you’re probably going to miss out on a handful of units. So you have to balance the extra requirements against how many of these do you hope to get to help with our housing crunch.”
Several Council members also questioned the maximum occupancy limit of ADUs being set at two people, given that the maximum size allowed for detached ADUs in the ordinance is 1,000 square feet.
“Something that’s 1,000 square feet could probably occupy more than one or two people, so my question is what problem would there be with expanding occupancy requirements to three or four instead of two?” asked Council member Nicholas Betts.
He suggested setting the maximum occupancy at three or four to potentially allow a small family, or a couple who may start a family while living in an ADU, to utilize these housing options.
Vice Mayor Marilyn Alexander noted that regulations regarding family housing fall under the Fair Housing Act and suggested consulting that for guidance and potential answers on how to proceed.
No one from the public spoke on the ordinance during the public hearing, which was continued until Council’s next meeting on Dec. 7.
