Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Landuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Copperton council adopts Title 19 changes easing setbacks, allowing some home‑based businesses
Summary
After a voluntary second public hearing, the Copperton Town Council approved Ordinance 2024‑12‑01 to reduce several setback requirements for accessory structures on small/quarter lots, allow some previously prohibited home‑occupation uses in detached accessory buildings, and replace vague yard‑maintenance language with enforceable standards.
The Copperton Town Council on Dec. 18 adopted Ordinance 2024‑12‑01, revising Title 19 setback and home‑occupation rules for certain small lots. The council opened a second public hearing after the planning commission and staff made substantive changes to the proposal.
Planner Brian Tucker said the ordinance reduces front/side/rear setbacks on quarter lots and corner lots — in some cases changing 20‑foot or 10‑foot setbacks to a 1‑foot standard where lots abut other yards — and clarifies where accessory structures such as sheds or garages may be placed. "Staff recommended approval," Tucker said, describing changes intended to reflect Copperton's unique lot patterns and to allow accessory structures between a house and the road in defined situations.
The ordinance also revises the town's home‑occupation rules. Three use categories previously listed as prohibited — certain retail‑oriented primary uses, vehicle‑repair and maintenance (including body and fender work), and small manufacturing or assembly — would be allowed in detached accessory structures under defined limits. The draft additionally permits small freestanding nameplate signs (approximately 3 by 3 feet), and replaces a vague "well‑maintained" yard standard with specific weed‑abatement, tree‑trimming and landscape maintenance obligations to create enforceable criteria.
Councilors asked staff to clarify height limits and to return with fine‑grained standards on allowable home‑occupation uses. There was specific discussion about the existing 20‑foot height cap; staff noted that removing a local 20‑foot cap could default to a 30‑foot maximum under other code language, and said they will refine height recommendations with the planning commission.
Tessa, participating online, praised the planning commission's work: "I feel that the planning and zoning board has done a fantastic job working with staff to get this drafted," she said, and thanked commissioners for tabling and digging into complex items. The council closed the public hearing after no members of the public came forward to comment.
A motion to adopt the ordinance passed; the meeting record notes the ordinance was approved with the council members present voting to approve and Tessa abstaining because she had previously declared a conflict of interest. The council asked staff to return with clarified use definitions and a recommended height limit before the ordinance is published and codified.
The ordinance took effect subject to standard publication; the council directed planning staff to refine the implementation details and to coordinate updates to enforcement language in the town code.
