In a recent city council meeting, a resident expressed frustration over a city ordinance that prohibits the retention of an unattached garage when a house is demolished. The individual, who sought a permit to keep the garage while planning to enhance the property with landscaping and a gazebo, was informed by city planning officials that the garage must also be removed under current regulations.

During the meeting, the resident recounted his conversation with city planners Craig Collins and Amber Gibbon, who clarified that the ordinance mandates a residential building must be present on-site before any accessory structures, such as garages, can be constructed. The resident argued that since he was not constructing but rather demolishing, the rule seemed illogical.

The city planners defined an accessory building as a subordinate structure incidental to the principal building, emphasizing that without a primary residence, the garage would be classified as a warehouse, which is not permitted in residential zones. The resident countered this classification, stating his intention to use the garage for winter boat storage and to improve the overall aesthetics of the property.

In response to his concerns, the council suggested pursuing a conditional use permit, which would involve a $600 fee and community approval. The resident questioned the rationale behind the ordinance, particularly when planners suggested he could build a mother-in-law unit inside the garage, which he felt contradicted the intent of the regulations.

The discussion highlights ongoing tensions between residents seeking to improve their properties and city regulations that may not accommodate individual circumstances. The resident is now seeking support from the council to amend the ordinance or obtain a special permit to retain his garage.