.jpg)
After many months of discussion by the Planning Commission and a work session by City Council, the latest draft of a proposed ordinance allowing accessory dwelling units within the city will go to public hearing at tomorrow night’s Council meeting.
The Planning Commission had approved the proposed ordinance in October and sent it onto City Council.
At a work session by City Council on Jan. 17, members worked out some details of the proposed ordinance.
Much of the discussion focused on short-term rentals and what regulations would be put in place on accessory dwelling units that were rented out as short-term rentals, or even if they should be allowed to be rented on a short-term basis at all.
While Council members were in agreement that only one short-term rental should be allowed on any given property within the city, there was some discussion on whether detached accessory dwellings should be allowed as shortterm rentals.
Council member Chuck Smith argued that the primary dwelling should be the only building rented on a short-term basis, arguing that allowing accessory dwellings to be rented as short-term rentals would “negate” the goal of increasing housing stock in the city.
“It’s running a business in a residential neighborhood,” he said. “I still have a problem with it. I don’t want growth in the ease or ability to build some sort of dwelling unit out back and to use it as a short-term rental.
“I’m concerned about incentivizing construction of ADUs in residential neighborhoods so that the property owner gets an easy cash fix for minimal cost,” he added.
Vice Mayor Marilyn Alexander and Council nember Charles Aligood agreed with Smith, with Alexander adding, “When we established the guidelines for short-term rentals, it was specifically to make sure that our neighborhoods didn’t become hotels, so we still need to be conservative in what we allow so it doesn’t change the dynamic of every neighborhood in the city.”
Council member Leslie Straughan argued in favor of increasing the availability of short-term rentals in the city, noting that her husband, Robert Straughan, the Crawford Family Dean of the Williams School of Commerce at Washington and Lee University, has been looking for them for when he has professors come to teach at the university on a short-term basis. She also noted that having a short-term rental option available would enable people who might build an ADU to house family members who visit but don’t move to Lexington permanently to get some use out of the space when their family isn’t in town.
Discussion also centered around what type of shortterm rental the detached ADU could be.
Lexington allows two different types of short-term rentals, both of which must be registered with the city. Type A rentals are when the property owner or longterm lessee is on the property and only one or two rooms is being rented and are allowed for up to 104 nights per year, while Type B rentals, which are when the owner is not on the property or is renting more than two rooms, are only allowed for 45 nights per year.
Council ultimately agreed to allow the detached ADU to only be a Type B rental. Attached ADUs would be allowed to be Type A or Type B rentals. Either the ADU or the primary dwelling could be rented as a short-term rental, but only one short-term rental would be allowed on the property.
-Another issue discussed by Council Jan. 17 was the maximum occupancy allowed for ADUs.
The ordinance drafted by the Planning Commission sets the maximum occupancy at two people.
Council member Nicholas Betts asked that the maximum occupancy be increased to four people to potentially allow small families to rent the units, pointing out that part of the standards for the city’s R-1 residential zoning district was to have an environment that “promotes a suitable environment for family life.”
“How are we going to exclude families from residential areas where we’re trying to promote family life?” he asked.
Straughan countered that there would then, potentially, be two families living on the same parcel and that two-family dwellings weren’t allowed in some of the districts where ADUs would be permitted. If the property owner wanted to have a dwelling to house a family, she argued, then he or she should subdivide the property and build a second house, provided the property met the conditions for that.
City planner Arne Glaeser noted that, in all of the ordinances the Planning Commission had looked at when drafting the ordinance, nearly all of them set a maximum occupancy for ADUs at two or three people.
Betts said that he “might be willing to compromise” and allow a maximum occupancy of three people, but that he felt “so strongly” about allowing small families to be able to rent these units “that I can’t vote for it if that’s not included.”
“We should look at this in terms of our local, state and federal housing shortage,” he said. “We have a shortage of housing, and what we’re essentially doing is discouraging family formation by putting this policy in place, because if a family can’t afford the houses that are currently on the market and they move into an accessory dwelling unit, then you are telling that young couple that if they have a kid, by law they could be kicked out of their residence. I think that is bad policy.
“These decisions impact people’s lives,” he continued. “And that’s why, as much as I want to vote for the accessory dwelling unit, and as much as I want to allow property owners the flexibility to rent as they see fit, I cannot support something that I don’t think gives families a fair chance, and, in my opinion, is antifamily.”
Council did not change the maximum occupancy allowed in ADUs by the ordinance.
-A third point of discussion centered on whether ADUs would be required to have separate water meters.
Council decided that property owners would not be required to have separate meters for their ADUs, but the city would charge a onetime system development fee of $1,200 and add the minimum monthly charge for the water bill on the property.
