Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Duplexes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates possible compromise on duplex requested for commercially zoned lot
Summary
Council members discussed a request to build a duplex on a commercially zoned parcel, options to rezone or adopt a development agreement, and implications for septic capacity, density limits and future precedent for neighborhoods near the aquifer.
Council members spent the largest portion of the Sept. 10 work session debating a request by a property owner, Tom (surname not specified in meeting transcript), to build a duplex on a parcel currently zoned commercial. The proposal prompted questions about rezoning, development agreements, septic capacity and groundwater-protection density rules.
Council discussion summarized three pathways: (1) allow a duplex in the commercial zone subject to conditions, (2) rezone the parcel back to rural residential and require septic and lot adjustments as part of a development agreement, or (3) deny the commercial-depth change and allow only residential development below the 400-foot commercial-depth line. Council members said they were concerned about setting an unwelcome precedent if two-family dwellings are allowed in commercial areas without clear safeguards.
Town staff explained a recent planning-commission recommendation and a separately submitted councilmember-drafted ordinance (Cameron’s draft) are both pending; the council will review those competing texts at the next work meeting. Members noted the draft village/neighborhood overlay contains standards that could permit two-family dwellings as an overlay zone, but the overlay itself and related standards have not yet been finalized and adopted.
Council members discussed wastewater and groundwater protection constraints. Staff recalled a wastewater study and a groundwater-protection study (several prior studies dating to the mid-1990s and a 2005 update were referenced in discussion) that informed a de facto one-unit-per-acre density guideline. Members said advanced onsite septic systems that reduce nitrates are available but costly (speakers estimated roughly $30,000 per system) and that higher-density development commonly depends on access to sewer service or approved advanced treatment systems.
Several possible compromise terms were floated: requiring a single upgraded septic system sized for the duplex, combining parcels through a boundary adjustment to reach an acre, or making a development agreement that limits commercial depth and ties any density increases to installation of an approved wastewater system. Staff was directed to gather the planning-commission materials, the two competing ordinance drafts, and public-comment records so the council can shape any development agreement or ordinance language at the next meeting.
No formal vote was taken at the work session. Council members asked staff to prepare documentation, to circulate the planning commission report and Cameron’s ordinance, and to draft options for a development agreement to consider at the next meeting.
