Commission reopens residential‑district rules; discusses household definition, ADUs and townhouse setbacks

Brandon planning staff resumed review of proposed changes to residential zoning, focusing on terminology (family vs. household), accessory dwelling units (ADUs), townhouse setbacks and whether certain small city‑owned lots should be rezoned.

At the outset, Patrick, a planning staff member, framed the discussion as a restart of an earlier conversation: “What is a family? Did we want to maybe shift more towards defining what a household is rather than a family and go that way?”

Why it matters: definitions of household/family, permitted household sizes and rules about ADUs can affect who may lawfully live together, how many unrelated adults can occupy a dwelling, and whether property owners can add separate small units — all matters that influence housing supply and neighborhood character.

Key points from discussion

- Household vs. family: Staff suggested replacing the term “family” with “household,” keyed to an economic unit living together rather than blood or legal relationships. Commissioners and staff said the aim was to capture living arrangements without excluding non‑related residents; Patrick described a draft household definition that “focuses on people living together as an economic unit.”

- Occupancy limits and enforcement: Commissioners noted enforcement limits and pointed to the International Property Maintenance Code for some occupancy standards. Paul (city code/enforcement representative) described a recent complaint alleging overcrowding and pests; the complaint prompted follow‑up and lease termination, highlighting how property maintenance codes intersect with occupancy concerns.

- Accessory dwelling units (ADUs): Staff and commissioners weighed potential benefits and risks of allowing ADUs (for example, apartments over garages). Concerns included conversions of existing detached accessory structures that may not meet building and fire codes, and the potential for owners to create living quarters too close to property lines. Commissioners suggested limiting ADUs to larger lots or regulating them tightly to avoid conflicts with neighboring owners.

- Townhouse patios and projections: The draft includes a requirement that paved patios under 12 inches in height be set back five feet from adjacent side or rear lot lines. Commissioners discussed whether that rule inadvertently penalizes interior townhouse units where zero side‑yard building setbacks are common; staff acknowledged the issue and said the rule may need clarification so patio standards do not conflict with townhouse design.

- Condo/duplex forms and vertical units: Commissioners asked staff to ensure zoning treats vertical duplexes and condominiums consistently and to consider whether PD (planned district) language remains the only place condos are allowed.

Direction and next steps

Staff will revise the residential memo to: (1) propose a household definition substituting for “family,” (2) clarify occupancy language tied to building and property maintenance codes, (3) consider where ADUs should be allowed and what lot‑size or parking minimums would apply, and (4) fix inconsistent setback and projection language for attached housing. Patrick said staff plans to consult with local developers and return with refined language.

Quotes

"What is a family? Did we want to maybe shift more towards defining what a household is rather than a family and go that way?" Patrick asked, framing the proposal.

Paul, describing an enforcement case, said a recent complaint that included allegations of overcrowding and pest problems resulted in landlord action and tenant relocation: "...it terminated. So but so they're gone."

Ending

Commissioners did not adopt new rules at the meeting; staff will produce revised draft language and solicit feedback from developers and other stakeholders before returning to the commission for further review.